‘iguana 








wis Ν 





ΤΥ fh Ms 
τος» 
πα λ νς, 


Μὰ 











πὴ Ἢ Oo ( 
᾿ κ᾿ | "San VG ἃ 3 
᾿ ' έέεζ.. 7223 


AN EXPOSITION Cl “σα: ys 


Tus th 2 Wyo. om ᾽ν 2223... 


THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 


HISTORICAL AND DOCTRINAL. 


BY 


EDWARD HAROLD BROWNE, Ὁ. Ὁ. 


LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER. 
EDITED, WITH NOTES, BY THE 


RT. REV. J. WILLIAMS, D. Ὁ. 


BISHOP OF CONNECTICUT. 





NEW YORK: 
E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY, 


713 BROADWAY. 


1874. 
















AVIN-YESIHY 


fe 


; cue | A VEITOOU. (A JADRIOTSR 


»: 


ad anwots si gan G#AWwOs- 


ew uancewnerte “0 Britain tear 


Hotored ccording'to Act of ¢ Congress, in ὁ year 1865, by 


Xs the Clerk's Office of the ΠΥ Cade a 
District of New York. — 





tee the: Soeitoaie 


ἃ 2M ΚΔΕΝ Rn Τὰ nats 


SOR ae. τὸ eee ae. 





ἄγεν ὁ χης WOH ee 
᾿ ane + 
MVAIMO TRA ΜΕ ai Ἅ τ 
aIVERNLOR οι τας 
BTEREOTYPED ΠΕ νεῦς ny 
H. O. HOUG A COMPANY. 


. 


TO 


THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, 


CONNOP, 
Lord Bishop of St. David’s, and Visitor of St. David's College, 


IN AFFECTIONATE GRATITUDE FOR UNSOUGHT AND UNEXPECTED KINDNESS, ANB 
WITH DEEP RESPECT FOR PROFOUND INTELLECT AND HIGH CHRISTIAN 
INTEGRITY, THE FOLLOWING PAGES 


Ave Wedicated 


BY HIS LORDSHIP’S ATTACHED AND FAITHFUL SERVANT, 


THE AUTHOR. 


ang κι Hest viet 


a ea ἈΝ 
Sah ee 


i 


εἷς ες he 


Ὡ 
o/s “ty 


MeN: ae 


ae + 





PREFATORY NOTE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


tere?’ Naas 


Tue Bisnor or Exy having kindly given his assent to the pro- 
posal for a reprint of his admirable Lectures on the Articles, it has 
fallen to the lot of the American Editor to add a few notes, which, 
it is hoped, may prove useful. These are all placed in brackets, 
with the Editor’s initials; not because they are deemed to possess 
any special value, but, simply, to relieve the Author from any 
responsibility for them. i 

The volume thus presented to American Students of Theology 
needs no words of commendation. The Editor has employed it, 
in instruction, for many years, with an ever-growing sense of its 


value. 
J. W. 


BERKELEY Divinity ScHOOL, 
February, 1864. 


ΩΣ εἰν ΠΌΜΑ πρὸ OF ΓΟ 


Ψ ἡ 


ων, ree at dus Wace oe ἘῚ , 
ἀὐκλοκε! τὰ i irons? thy, uaa prea 


sae uy \Gemwndlt' 7% edt weapon tor ων tee 5 ur ΤΣ Saab wt aii 
hous jou youksinly Cl ἐρημίας Cigars ἀπὲ tle: ‘tuloge, a, 


Vey ihe “gmade: wut Yilidanne gern: 

μι Fgaetond w woke ἄτα ᾿μλογνανϑώρονδι mene ἀξ ἢ 
» τ ἀμόνι we teal χρυ δ΄ oe ᾿μαινὶμβννννιμμτι aime!) Yo ψάρια on eho 
δ Ἴδ ese Sanne Sntvolh i θέν, Dani pre: * gered 


ὝΠΟ Ὶ ᾿ 


ΠΣ chee νὰ oan? Ἕ 





INTRODUCTION. 


----«--- 


eg Reformation was not the work, either of a year, or of 4 
generation. Its foundation was laid both in the good and 
in the evil qualities of our nature. Love of truth, reverence for 
sacred things, a sense of personal responsibility, a desire for the 
possession of full spiritual privileges, codperated with the pride 
of human reason, the natural impatience of restraint, and the envy 
and hatred inspired among the nobles by a rich and powerful 
hierarchy, to make the world weary of the Papal domination, and 
desirous of reform in things spiritual and ecclesiastical. 

Wickliffe in England, and Huss and Jerome of Prague in 
Germany, had long ago given utterance to a feeling which lay 
deep in the hearts and spread wide among the ranks of thinking 
men. It was said of Wickliffe, that half of the secular priests in 
England agreed with him; and his followers long gave serious 
trouble both to Church and State. On the Continent, the Bohe- 
mian Church was rent by faction; and even open war was the 
result of an obstinate denial of the Cup in the Lord’s Supper to 
the lay-members of Christ’s Church. The two great Councils of 
Constance (A.D. 1415) and Basle (a. p. 1431) were the results of 
the general call for a reformation of abuses; and they left them 
where they were, or aggravated and strengthened them. 

But there was a leaven which could not be prevented from 
working. ‘The revival of letters and the art of printing taught 
men how to think, and how to communicate their thoughts. 
Men, whose character was almost purely literary, contributed not 
a little to pull down the system which threatened to stifle learning 
by confounding it with heresy. Amongst these, on every account, 
the most important and influential was Erasmus. It is thought 
by many that his Biblical criticism and his learned wit did more 
to rouse men to reform, than the honest but headlong zeal . of 
Luther. At least, if there had been no Erasmus to precede him, 
Luther’s voice, if it could not have been stilled, might soon have 
been stifled. He might not have found both learning and power 


gi 5.5 TwPRODUCTION. 


zealous to protect him, so that he could defy and prove superior to 
the allied forces of the Emperor and the Pope. But Erasmus was 
himself alarmed at the spirit he had raised. He had been zealous 
for reformation ; but he dreaded destruction. And he was the 
type of many, more in earnest than himself. On both sides of 
the great controversy, which soon divided Europe into two hostile 
communities, were many who wished to have abuses eradicated, 
but who feared to see the fabric of ages shaken to its centre. 
Some, like Erasmus, remained in communion with Rome ; others, 
like Melancthon, joined the Reformation. The distance in point 
of sentiment between the more moderate men, thus by force of 
circumstances arrayed in opposition to each other, was probably 
but very small. But in the ranks of both parties there were 
many of a more impetuous and less compromising spirit ; and, as 
the voice of a community is generally expressed in the tones of 
its loudest speakers, we are apt to look on all the reformers as 
actuated by a violent animosity to all that was Roman, and on the 
adherents of Rome as unrelentingly bent to destroy and extermi- 
nate all that was Protestant. 

While this state of things was pending, and whilst the spirit of 
inquiry was at least as much alive in England as on the Continent, 
Henry VIII. was drawn into a difference with the Papal see on 
the subject of his divorce with Catharine of Aragon. The merits 
of the question may be debated elsewhere. This much alone we 
may observe, that Henry, if he acted from principle, not from 
passion, might have suffered his scruples to weigh with him when 
his wife was young and well-favoured, not when she had grown 
old and care-worn; when she brought him a rich dowry, not when 
he had absorbed and spent it; when he had hopes of a male heir 
to his throne, not when those hopes had been disappointed, the 
lady Mary being the sole issue of his alliance. But, whatever 
the moving cause, he was in hostility to the see of Rome; and his 
only chance of making head against it was to call up and give 
strength to the spirit of reformation. 

Cranmer had been introduced to him by some casual observa- 
tions on the best way of settling the question of the divorce ; and 
Cranmer from that time forth Henry steadily favoured and pro- 
tected. In 1533, the king threw off the supremacy of the Bishop 
of Rome, and declared the independence of his kingdom and of its 
Church. But it has been said that he rejected the Pope, not the 
Papacy. The Church was to be independent of Rome, but not 
independent absolutely. For a spiritual, he substituted a temporal 


INTRODUCTION. “9 


head, and wished to confer on that temporal head — himself— all 
the ecclesiastical authority which had been enjoyed by the spir- 
itual. Cranmer was now Archbishop of Canterbury. His char- 
acter has been differently described by those who have taken 
their views of it from different sides of the question. His greatest 
enemies can scarcely deny him the virtues of mildness, moderation, 
and patience, nor the praise of learning and candor.1_ His greatest 
admirers can hardly affirm that he was free from weakness and 
timidity, and a too ready compliance with the whims and wishes 
of those in power. But he had a hard post to fill, Henry had 
thrown off the power of the Pope, and so had thrown himself into 
the party of the reformers; but he had no mind to throw off all 
the errors of Popery, and to go all lengths with the Reformation. 
Cranmer had often to steer his course warily, lest his bark should 
make shipwreck altogether; and over-zeal for his cause might 
provoke the hostility of one whose word was law, and whose 
will would brook no restraint from an archbishop, when it had 
dethroned a Pope. 

During Henry’s reign, several documents were put forth, vary- 
ing in their complexion, according as Cranmer had more or less 
influence with him. The Six Articles nearly swamped the Refor- 
mation, and endangered even the archbishop. The Bishops’ Book, 
or the Institution of a Christian Man, was a confession of faith set 
forth when Cranmer and Ridley were in the ascendant. But it 
was succeeded by the King’s Book, the Necessary Doctrine, which 
was the king’s modification of the Bishops’ Book, in which Gar- 
diner had greater influence, and which restored some of those 
doctrines of the Roman communion which the Bishops’ Book had 
discarded.? 

Cranmer was himself not as yet fully settled in his views. He 
had early split with the Papacy, and convinced himself of the 


! His first Protestant successor in the 
archiepiscopal see has thus described 
him: Ut theologiam a barbarie vindica- 
ret, adjecit literas Grecas et Hebraicas ; 
quarum sane post susceptum doctoratus 
gradum constat eum perstudiosum fuisse. 
Quibus perceptis antiquissimos tam Gre- 
cos quam Latinos patres evolvit: concilia 
omnia et antiquitatem ad ipsa Apostolo- 
rum tempora investigavit; theologiam 
totam, detracta illa quam sophiste ob- 
duxerant vitiata cute, ad vivum rese- 
cavit: quam tamen non doctrina magis 
quam moribus et vita expressit. Mira 
enim temperantia, mira animi lenitate 

2 


atque placabilitate fuit; ut nulla injuria 
aut contumelia ad iram aut vindictam 
provocari possit; inimicissimosque, quo- 
rum vim ac potentiam etsi despexit 
ac leviter tulit, ab offensione tamen ad 
inimicitias deponendas atque gratiam 
ineundam sepe humanitate duxit. Eam 
preeterea constantiam, gravitatem ac 
moderationem pre se tulit, ut in omni 
varietate rebusque, sive secundis, sive 
adversis, nunquam turbari animum ex 
fronte vultuqve colligeres. — Matt. Par- 
ker, De Aniig. Britann. Eccles. p. 495 
Lond. 1729. 

2 See Cardwell’s Synodalia, p. 34, note 


10 INTRODUCTION. 


need of reformation, and of the general defection from the faith 
of the Scriptures and the primitive Church. But he was some 
time before he gave up the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and 
other opinions in which he had been educated.1_ The bishops and 
clergy in general were far less disposed to reformation than the 
king or the archbishop. It was rather by an exercise of regal 
prerogative than by the force of persuasion, that changes were 
effected, even to the extent which took place in Henry’s reign. 
It was also not much to the taste of the clergy, that they should 
be forced to pay the same obedience to a temporal which they 
had hitherto paid to a spiritual head: especially when Henry 
seemed to claim, and Cranmer, at least for a time, to sanction, 
spiritual obedience to such a temporal authority ; and most of all 
when Henry had given marked indications, that, instead of mak- 
ing lighter the yoke which the Pope had put upon them, his little 
finger would be thicker than the Pope’s loins. But neither clergy 
nor people were allowed to speak louder than the king chose to 
suffer. Convocation, both in this reign and the next, had little 
weight, and was not often consulted. 

However, in Henry’s reign many important steps were taken, 
The Church was declared independent of Rome. The Bible was 
translated into English. So also were many portions of the 
Church service. Negotiations were opened with the German Re- 
formers, especially with Melancthon, whom Henry and Cranmer 
besought in vain to come over and help them.? And in 1588, in 
consequence of conferences between Cranmer and the German 
divines, a body of thirteen articles was drawn up, in great meas- 
ure agreeing with the Confession of Augsburg.* 

On the accession of Edward VI., who was himself a zealous 
partisan of the Reformation, greater changes were speedily made. 
Ii: 1547 the first book of Homilies was put forth. In 1548 * The 
Archbishop of Canterbury with other learned and discreet bishops 
and divines” were appointed ‘by the king to draw an order of 
divine worship, having respect to the pure religion of Christ 
taught in the Scripture, and to the practice of the primitive 
2 Melancthon seems to have known 


Henry’s character too well to wish to 
become his counsellor. See Laurence, 


_ ἢ Ridley was converted from a belief 
in Transubstantiation to believe in the 


Spiritual Presence by reading Ratramn’s 
book, and he was the means of bringing 
over Cranmer, who in time brought Lati- 
mer to the same conviction. See Rid- 
ley’s Life of Ridley, p. 162. The date as- 
signed to Ridley’s conviction is 1545. 
See also Soames’s Hist. of Reformation, 
m1. ch. 11, p. 177. 


Bampton Lectures, p. 198, third edition, 
London, 1888; and Dr. Cardwell’s Pre/- 
ace to the two Liturgies of King Edward 
VI. Oxf. 1838, p. iv. note 6. 

8. See Cranmer’s Works, by Jenkyns, 
rv. p. 278. 


INTRODUCTION. 11 


Church.” This commission is said to have consisted of Cranmer, 
Archbishop of Canterbury; Day, Bishop of Chichester; Goodrich, 
Bishop of Ely; Skip, Bishop of Hereford ; Holbeach, of Lincoln ; 
Ridley, of Rochester; Thirlby, of Westminster; May, Dean of 
St. Paul’s; Taylor, Dean of Lincoln; Haynes, Dean of Exeter ; 
Robertson, Archdeacon of Leicester ; Redmayne, Master of Trin- 
ity College, Cambridge ; Cox, almoner to the king and Dean of 
Westminster and Christ Church.! These commissioners, or a 
portion of them,? drew up the first Service Book of Edward VL, 
which was approved by Convocation, and confirmed by both 
Houses of Parliament. The principal sources from which it was 
derived were the ancient offices of the Church of England, and 
with them very probably the Liturgy drawn up by Melancthon 
and Bucer, at the request of Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, 
for the use of his diocese, which had been principally derived 
from the ancient liturgy of Nuremberg.’ 

The same year, Cranmer translated a Catechism written by Jus- 
tus Jonas, which he put forth with his own authority, and which 
is commonly called Cranmer’s Catechism. The Calvinistic refotm- 
ers of the Continent made many objections to the Liturgy as drawn 
up in 1548; and many English divines entertained similar scruples. 
It is probable that the clergy at large were not desirous of farther 
reformation. But the king and the archbishop were both anxious 
for a revision, which should do away with any appearance of giv- 
ing sanction to Roman superstitions. Accordingly an order was 
given to prepare a new Service Book. The king and his council 
were most zealous in favor of the change, and it is even said that 
the king declared, in a spirit like his father’s, that, if the bishops 
would make the desired change, he would interpose his own su- 
preme authority to enforce its acceptance. 

The new Service Book was put forth in 1552, and, with few 
exceptions, although these few are very important, it is the same 
as that we now possess under the name of the Book of Common 
Prayer. 


1 See Strype’s Cranmer, p. 198. Rid- 
ley’s Life of Ridley, p. ot, Collier’s 
Eccl. Hist. 11. p. 252, ἄς. Downes’s 


Ridley, Goodrich, Holbeach, May, Tay- 
lor, Haynes, and Cox. ‘If,’ he says, 
“it be true that Dr. Redmayn did not 


Lives of the Compilers of the Liturgy, pre- 
fixed to Sparrow’s Rationale. Soames’s 
Hist. Ref. 111. p. 852. The first Ser- 
vice Book was attributed by his con- 
temporary Bale to Cranmer.. On Cran- 
mer’s approbation of it, see Jenkyns’s 
Cranmer, τ. pp. liii. liv. 

2 Soames seems satisfied that the par- 
ties actually engaged were Cranmer, 


cordially approve the new Liturgy, that 
circumstance is to be regretted, for his 
age could boast of few men more erudite 
and honest.” —111. p. 266. This wit- 
nyt is true. 

8 See Cardwell’s Preface to the two 
Liturgies of Edward VI., p. xiii., and the 
authorities there referred to. 


12 INTRODUCTION. 

The Convocation was not permitted to pass its judgment on it, 
because it would, in all probability, have thrown all possible diffi- 
culties in the way of its’ publication. It came forth with the au- 
thority of Parliament; though the act which enjoined its accept- 
ance declared that the objections to the former book were rather 
curious than reasonable. 

The same year saw the publication of the forty-two “ Articles 
of Religion.” They were framed by the archbishop at the king’s 
command, and committed to certain bishops to be inspected and 
approved by them. They were then returned to the archbishop 
and amended by him; he then sent them to Sir William Cecil and 
Sir John Cheke, who agreed that the archbishop should offer 
them to the king, which accordingly he did. They were then 
communicated to some other divines, and returned once more to 
the archbishop. The archbishop made his last remarks upon them, 
and so returned them again in three days to the council, beseeching 
them to prevail with the king to give authority to the bishops to 
cause their respective clergy to subscribe them.? 

It has been doubted whether these articles, thus drawn up, were 
ever sanctioned by Convocation. Dr. Cardwell, in his Synodalia, 
has given good reason to think that they received full synodical 
authority. 

It has been shown by Archbishop Laurence ὃ and others, that 
the Lutheran Confessions of Faith, especially the Confession of 
Augsburg, were the chief sources to which Cranmer was indebted 
for the Articles of 1552. He did not servilely follow, but yet 
made copious.use of them. 

The chief assistant to Cranmer, both in this labor and in the 


1 Strype’s Cranmer, pp. 210, 266, 289. ter Ridley, that of these Articles “the 


Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 883. Collier’s 
Eecl. Hist. 11. 809. Soames, 111. ch. vr. 
p. 592. “The prelates themselves appear 
to have considered the existing Liturgy 
as sufficiently unexceptionable, for in the 
act authorizing the new one it was de- 
clared that the former book contained 
nothing but what was agreeable to the 
word of God, and the primitive Church ; 
and that such doubts as had been raised 
in the use and exercise thereof proceeded 
rather from the curiosity of the ministers 
and mistakers, than of any other worthy 
cause.”’ — Soames, 111. Ὁ. 595. 

® Wake’s State of the Church, ἄς, p. 699. 
a by Cardwell, Synodalia, 1. p. 8. 

e also Jenkyns’s Cranmer, 1. p. 857. 
It is asserted by Strype, in his Life 
of Cranmer, and repeated by Glouces- 


archbishop was the penner, or at least the 
great director, with the assistance, as is 
very probable, of Bishop Ridley.” id- 
ley’s Life, p. 348. 

Mr. Soames says,“ Of the Articles now 
framed Abp. Cranmer must be considered 
as the sole compiler. . . . It seems likely 
that he consulted his friend Ridley, and 
that he obtained from him many notes. 
It is however certain, that the Bishop of 
London was not actually concerned in 
preparing the Articles, as Cranmer, when 
"πὰ είν at Oxford, took upon himself 
the whole responsibility of that work :” 
for which he quotes Foxe, 1704. Soames’s 
Hist, Ref. 111. p. 648. 

3 Bampton Lectures, passim, especially 
p. 280. 


INTRODUCTION. 13 


translations and revisions of the Liturgy, was unquestionably his 
great friend and counsellor, Ridley. It is well known that he 
had material influence in inducing the archbishop to renounce the 
doctrine of Transubstantiation and to embrace that of the Spiritual 
Presence; and the Romanist party of the day asserted that 
Cranmer derived all his learning from Ridley. However untrue 
this may be, it is pretty certain that they always acted in concert. 
In the drawing up of the first Service Book, Ridley was one of the 
commissioners; and no doubt, next to Cranmer, had a principal 
hand in compiling and afterwards revising it. Some of the com- 
missioners protested against the passing the act for authorizing 
the first book, inasmuch as it went beyond their views of liturgical 
reform. But Ridley showed the greatest zeal to induce conformity 
both to it, and to the Second Service Book, which was far more 
extensively reformed. And indeed throughout, Cranmer and he 
appear to have walked in the same course, and acted on the same 
principles. 

It is of consequence to remember these facts. For, if Cranmer 
and Ridley were the chief compilers both of the Prayer Book and 
of the Articles, although the Church is in no degree bound by 
their private opinions, yet, when there is a difficulty in understand- 
ing a clause either in the Articles or the Liturgy, which are the 
two standards of authority as regards the doctrine of the English 
Church, it cannot but be desirable to elucidate such difficulties by 
appealing to the writings and otherwise expressed opinions of 
these two reformers. It is true, both Liturgy and Articles have 
been altered since their time. Yet by far the larger portion of 
both remains just as they left them. The Convocation appears to 
have made little alteration in the Articles, and none in the Liturgy 
in Edward’s reign ; for the Second Service Book was not submitted 
to it, and it has been even doubted whether the Articles were 
passed by it. 

The event which seemed to crush the Reformation in the bud, 
in fact gave it life. Neither clergy nor people appear to. have 
been very hearty in its cause, when it came commended to them 
by the tyranny of Henry, or even by the somewhat arbitrary 
authority of Edward and the Protector Somerset. But when its 
martyrs bled at the stake, and when the royal prerogative was 
arrayed against it, it then became doubly endeared to the people, 
as the cause of liberty as well as of religion. 

Elizabeth, though not less a Tudor than her predecessors, was 

1 Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 162, referred to above. 


14 INTRODUCTION. 


wiser, if not better than they. She at once disclaimed the title 
of Supreme Head of the Church in such a sense as might make 
it appear that her authority was spiritual, or trenching on the 
prerogative and rights of the clergy.!. She allowed the Convoca- 
tion to be consulted, both on the Liturgy and the Articles, 

And now both clergy and laity were more prepared to adopt 
the tenets and the worship of the Reformers. Men who did not 
wish to change their creed at the will of Henry, had learned to 
dread the despotism of Rome, as exhibited in the reign of Mary. 
There were yet many different sets of opinion in the country. A 
large number of clergy and laity were still for communion with 
Rome and for retaining the mass; others had imbibed a love of 
the doctrine and discipline of Geneva, and viewed a surplice with 
horror and aversion; others again leant to what were called 
Lutheran sentiments, and were viewed by one extreme as papists, 
by the other as heretics. Happily the leading divines in the 
Church, and especially Parker, the new archbishop, were imbued 
with moderate sentiments, and succeeded for a time in steering 
the Ark of the Church skilfully amid the fury of the contending 
elements. Their wise conduct and the gradual progress of opin- 
ions in the course of time appeased the vehemence of the Roman- 
ist party ; though it is painful to add, that measures of a most cruel 
character were too often adopted by the friends of the Reforma- 
tion, against the leading propagators of Romish doctrine: measures 
which stain the memory of Elizabeth’s reign almost as deeply, and 
not so excusably, as the fires of Smithfield do that of Mary’s.* 
But, though Romanism was then decaying, the opposite extreme 
party was gradually advancing; and it advanced, till in the end it 
overthrew the altar and the throne. Its influence, however, was 
not great on the formularies of the Church. The Second Service 
Book of Edward VI. was restored in the beginning of the reign 
of Elizabeth, with some alterations, principally the insertion of a 
few rubrics and passages from the First Service Book, and partly 
the omission of one or two sentences, which were thought need- 
lessly offensive, or doubtful in their orthodoxy. The Prayer Book 
underwent subsequent revisions in the reigns of James I. and 
Charles II., which reduced it to its present form. 

The alterations in the Articles have been fewer, and perhaps 
less important. Soon after his appointment to the primacy, which 


1 In her Injunctions set forth in the 2 See Soames’s Elizabethan Religious 
year 1559, Be i to and confirmed in βίον, ch. v. 
the XXX VIIth Article of the Church. 


INTRODUCTION. 15 


took place in 1559, Archbishop Parker set on foot various meas- 
ures for the regulation and government of the Church, now again 
under the care of a reforming sovereign, and with a reforming 
archbishop at its head. It appears that one of Parker’s earliest 
labors was directed towards a recasting of the “Articles of Re- 
ligion.”” He expunged some parts of the original Articles, and 
added some others. In this work he was guided, like Cranmer, 
in a great degree by Lutheran formularies. As Cranmer had 
derived much from the Confession of Augsburg, so he took several 
clauses from the Confession of Wurtemberg.! Both Houses of 
Convocation considered the draught of the Articles thus made 
by the archbishop, and by him committed to their inspection and 
revision. ‘The Convocation, as appears from an original document 
in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, made several 
farther alterations, besides those which the archbishop had made. 
Especially, they erased the latter part of the original 8d Article, 
concerning the preaching to the spirits in prison, the whole of the 
39th, 40th, and 42d, the archbishop having previously erased the 
41st, thus reducing the whole number to 38. ‘There was some 
little difference between the copy of the Articles thus submitted to 
and approved by the Convocation in 1562 and the copy afterwards 
published by the queen’s command, and with her royal appro- 
bation. The latter omitted the 29th Article, whose title was 
“Tmpii non manducant Corpus Christi in usu coene,” and added 
the famous clause in the 20th Article, ““ Habet Ecclesia ritus 
statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis auctoritatem.” Both altera- 
tions are believed to be due to the queen herself, in the exercise of 
what she considered her undoubted right. . 

An English translation of these Articles was put forth soon af- 
ter by the authority of Convocation, not apparently of the queen. 
This translation does not contain the famous clause on Church 
authority, which the queen or her council had inserted, nor yet 
the Article ‘“Impii non manducant,” which the Convocation had 
authorized, but which the council had expunged.? 

In the year 1571 the Articles were again subscribed by both 
Houses of Convocation, and committed to the editorship of Bishop 
Jewell. They were then put forth in their present form, both in 
Latin and English; and received, not only the sanction of Convo- 
cation, but also of Parliament. The Latin Articles, as published at 
this period, omitted the famous clause concerning Church authority ; 


1 Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, p. 288. 
2 See Cardwell’s Synodalia, p. 34. 


16 INTRODUCTION, 


the English retained it. Both contained the 29th Article, con- 
cerning the wicked not eating the Body of Christ. 

The Articles, which were now 89 in number, making, with 
the Confirmation, 40, were thus set forth with the authority of 
the Queen, of the Convocation, and of the Parliament. The clause 
concerning Church authority was still, however, in a measure 
loubtful; it being even to this day uncertain whether it received 
fully the sanction of Convocation. The bishops of both provinces 
soon after enacted canons, by which all members were bound to 
subscribe the Articles approved in the synod.! 

The mode in which the Articles, thus reduced to their present 
form, were drawn up and imposed upon the Church is a subject 
which may well admit of question and debate. The exercise of 
State authority, in the whole course of the Reformation, corre- 
sponds more with the notions of prerogative suited to those days, 
than with the feelings of modern times.2— But whatever may be 
said on this head, one fact is plain, namely, that the Articles thus 
drawn up, subscribed, and authorized, have ever since been signed 
and assented to by all the clergy of the Church, and by every 
graduate of both Universities; and have hence an authority far 
beyond that of any single Convocation or Parliament, namely, the 
unanimous and solemn assent of all the bishops and clergy of the 
Church, and of the two Universities for well-nigh three hundred 
years. 

In the interpretation of them, our best guides must be, first, 
their own natural, literal, grammatical meaning; next to this, a 
knowledge of the controversies which had prevailed in the Church, 
and made such Articles necessary; then, the other authorized 
formularies of the Church; after them, the writings and known 
opinions of such men as Cranmer, Ridley, and Parker, who drew 
them up; then, the doctrines of the primitive Church, which they 
professed to follow; and, lastly, the general sentiments of the 
distinguished English divines, who have been content to subscribe 
the Articles, and have professed their agreement with them for now 
three hundred years, These are our best guides for their in- 
terpretation. Their authority is derivable from Scripture alune. 

On the subject of subscription, of late so painfully agitated, 


1 Cardwell’s Synodalia, 1. p. 127. 

2 It will be remembered, that in the 
reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. 
the whole nation, and therefore, of course, 
the king and the Parliament, considered 
themselves as members of the national 
Church. Hence their interference in the 


reformation of the Church was a v 
different thing from the interference of a 
Parliament not consisting exclusively of 
churchmen. ‘The question, as to how far 
the laity ought to be consulted in draw- 
ing up formularies or services, may be 
considered as open to discussion. 


INTRODUCTION. 17 


very few words may be sufficient. To sign any document in a 
non-natural sense seems hardly consistent with Christian integrity 
or common manliness. But, on the other hand, a national Church 
should never be needlessly exclusive. It should, we can hardly 
doubt, be ready to embrace, if possible, all who truly believe in 
God, and in Jesus Christ whom He hath sent. Accordingly, our 
’ own Church requires of its Jay members no confession of their 
faith, except that contained in the Apostles’ Creed.? 

In the following pages an attempt is made to interpret and 
explain the Articles of the Church, which bind the consciences of 
her clergy, according to their natural and genuine meaning ; and 
to prove that meaning to be both Scriptural and Catholic. None 
can feel so satisfied, nor act so straightforwardly, as those who ἢ 
subscribe them in such a sense. But, if we consider, how much 
variety of sentiment may prevail amongst persons, who are, in the 
main, sound in the faith; we can never wish that a national 
Church, which ought to have all the marks of catholicity, should 
enforce too rigid and uniform an interpretation of its formularies 
and terms of union. The Church should be not only Holy and 
Apostolic, but as well, One and Catholic. Unity and universality 
are scarcely attainable, where a greater rigor of subscription is 
required, than such as shall insure an adherence and conformity 
to those great catholic truths, which the primitive Christians lived 
by, and died for. 


to them “from the Convention of their 
Diocese.” The only action, however, 


1 See the Baptismal Service and the 
Visitation of the Sick. 


[The Articles were not adopted in the 
United States of America till September 
12th, 1801, although a body of twenty 
Articles appears in the ProposEeD Boox. 
Bishop White states that the subject had 
been seriously considered and . discussed 
by the bishops, both in 1789 and 1792. 
In 1789, Bishop Seabury, the only bishop 
present besides Bishop White, ‘‘ doubted 
of the need of Articles.”” In 1792, Bish- 
ops White and Claggett were in favour 
of adopting them, while Bishops Pro- 
voost and Madison were “directly 
against” them. Bishop Seabury still 
doubted, but was disposed to consider 
their adoption more favourably than in 
1789. The latitudinarian objections of 
Bishops Provoost and Madison might 
well startle any man who found himself, 
even though on’very different grounds, 
occupying the same position with them. 

In the General Convention of 1799, the 
subject was taken up “at the pressing 
instance of the deputies from Connecti- 
cut,”’ and in consequence of instructions 

3 


was that, of the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies. They appear to have * 
appointed a committee who reported “a 
proposed body of Articles wholly new 
in form,” which were printed in the Jour- 
nal. These articles were never voted on 
in the House in which they were report- 
ed, were never acted on by the bishops, 
and, indeed, were never seen by them 
till they appeared in print. The meas- 
ure was, in every aspect of it, injudi- 
cious, and even absurd. But, after all, 
it worked towards a good result, by 
“ showing the impossibility of agreement 
in a new form,” and exhibiting the 
inherent folly of the proposal. The 
feeling of opposition against any such 
attempt was a continually growing ome; 
and at last — with some alterations, 
which will be specified in their proper 
places — the English Articles were adopt- 
ed, in 1801. ὁ 

See Bishop White’s Memoirs, &c., 
notes Καὶ and N. —J/. W.] 


eb: eet ne. are. τ: abe τὰ Ε ξγουν ol 
υ ῶδΝ ἀδοξμμοα ii ri yas κα τς bk τάχ 
idl minh ὦ δαὶ ὑυλίίλεν δ a μόνα PMR Ch 6a 
rae Eaenstar lid the ρον δα ἡ i Patan ῥίον 
: Parsi τε edie Ue μευ, ὦ ρδηζα τν πίον ni. hoods 
+ Rae cllanibiciad. te ad oth nei ἃ "κ bs one. ποῦν 
ae nade Ne, treet tation ink ON rea ON ᾿ ; 
ἐν δας Pa μὲ γε iy eae καὶ ΙΝ, ὦ 
bet ree av hie ake δα: wn 
* cibleneinteccscrs: win δα sind bet αἱ ἰδ 
Pils +. soosintev sas οὔθέια; ey 1 bapa aehietedd iil: 
ie cadiyiien k inn ley apasieatiediednas 3 retreat 
-— ko ta scrim os od feapeaian a . 


past’ stati HAY eon neva horas ra ὀραβεοτες. ten 
bilivuris «tlt a a Satncast sige ton alot 


yr {18 en ἀρ τάμε bo μὴ ἡῆώτης 
pian ious ata, pats ἐμαὶ : i. Wh 
ay ψικίφη en ealdtow ‘eK weit uetentts pana ἀδάραίορι 


referee tons. aronnlion ig tute Marin ἀρ, alone ams: dasinips: 
) wel snadterolids ira ae ὑμῖν iegoeomenee are - ΦεΙΔΣ Ὡς; 
fee bu. Ὃν 


ΑΝ * Β΄ ΣΝ μεν ᾿ ΒΤ ᾿ Υ̓ a ; ine. Sif a Ϊ 
“γα AN A peut ion hoe! Mee eeT Me ‘ aot Wh coins v 
Uiiny (2. teh Aux Ἀόνε lene oa Dy a 
4 wat Ἢ beige) τ ἷ r 


arte ai m Om ‘ 
at tia. arch ὯΝ ᾿ 
UG ura ΠΣ ΤῊ 


εν ἡδύ hie 
τὶ shy ΠῚ ἤ 
pa rl vite el! anti i 
Δ + Asa 
bis Ἐν τῆς 
τ: Mf We ie 


Ap is diya Pry | 
Tehot fring a ape 
f MOD. Heep hiiage hive λη 
Sec hy μὴ, ΜΗ 
Mai may ΤΠ 


oft Wiest 1 





ARTICLE I. 


------- 


Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. 


THERE is but one living and true God, 
everlasting, without body, parts, or pas- 
sions ; of infinite power, wisdom, and 
gooduess; the Maker and Preserver of 
all things, both visible and invisible. And 
in the unity of this Godhead there be 
three Persons, of one substance, power, 
and eternity : the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost. 


De fide in Sacrosanctam Trinitatem. 


Unvus est vivus et verus Deus, zeternus, 
incorporeus, impartibilis, impassibilis ; 
immense potenti, sapientiw, ac boni- 
tatis; Creator et Conservator omnium, 
tum visibilium, tum invisibilium. Et in 
unitate hujus divine nature tres sunt 
Persone, ejusdem essentie, potentiz, ac 
zternitatis: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus 
Sanctus. 





Section I.— HISTORY. 


pe Article is evidently concerned with two somewhat distinct 


subjects. 

First. 
general. 

SECONDLY. 


The Nature and Essential Attributes of God in the 


The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. 


The Frrsr part is common to natural and revealed religion, 


and requires less either of illustration from history or demonstra- 
tion from Scripture ; it having been the universal creed, both of 
Jews and Christians, ‘God is one, living and ‘true, everlasting, 
without body, parts, or passions ; of infinite power, wisdom, and 
goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and 
invisible.” 

There have, however, been two classes of speculators, against 
whom we may suppose these words to be directed. 

1. The obscure sect of the Anthropomorphites is reckoned as 
a heresy of the fourth century, and is said to have reappeared in 
the tenth, in the district of Vicenza in Italy.1_ Their opinion, as 


1,566. Suicer, 8. v. ἀνϑρωπομορφῖται, 
and Mosheim, cclesiast. Hist. Cent. x. 
pt. 11. ch. v. § 4. 


and unable to “occupy two distinct 
places αὖ once.” The same statement 
occurs in the Millennial Star. On the 


[This‘error has been revived by the 
Mormons, In the Latter-Day Saints’ Cat- 
echism, or Child’s Ladder, by Elder David 
Moffat, God is described as an “ intelli- 
-gent, material personage, possessing both 
body and parts,” possessing “ passions,” 


Divine attributes, the profound work of 
Dean Jackson, and the fourth chapter 
of ‘Mr. Owen’s Introduction to the Si 

of awh Theology, should be studied. 


20 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Arr L 


expressed by their name, was that God was in form as a man, 
material, and with body and members like our own. 

2. The more important and dangerous error of the Pantheists 
may not be directly alluded to in the Article, but is plainly 
opposed by it. 1 | 

Pantheism has been the prevailing Esoteric doctrine of all 
Paganism, and, with various modifications, the source of a great 
part of ancient philosophy... The Orphic Hymns have evident 
traces of it. Thales and the Eleatic School expressed it distinctly, 
and in the definite language of philosophy.?. There can be little 
doubt, that it was the great doctrine revealed in the mysteries. 
The Egyptian theology was plainly based upon it.? It was at the 
root of the Polytheism of the Greeks and Romans; and their 
gross idolatry was probably but an outward expression of its more 
mystic refinements.* The Brahmins and Buddhists, whose relig- 
ious systems still prevail amongst nearly half the human race, 
though also, exoterically, gross Polytheists, are yet, in their phi- 
losophy, undisguised Pantheists.5 The Jewish Cabala is thought 
to have drunk deep of the same fountain.® 

When the Christian faith came in contact with Eastern phi- 
losophy, it is probable that Pantheistic notions found their way 
into its corruptions. Gnostics and Manichees, and possibly some 
of the later heretics, such as the Paulicians, had some admixture 
of Pantheism in their creeds. Simon Magus himself may possibly 
have used its language, when he gave himself out as “the great 
power of God.” 

Its leading idea is, that God is everything, and everything is 
God.’ Though all mind, whether of men or animals, is God, yet 
no individual mind is God; and so all distinct personality of the 
Godhead is lost. The supreme being of the Hindoos is therefore 
neither male nor female, but neuter. All the numberless forms 
of matter are but different appearances of God; and though he is 


1 Cudworth, Int. Syst. ch. rv. passim, 
especially §§ 29, 82, 33, 84. 
Ps τος ἐν δ ch. τ δὲ = 81, 

ennemann’s Man of Philosophy, pp. 
59, ἣν iat. 1882.) 4 epics 

"Ey εἰμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονὸς, καὶ dv, καὶ 
ἐσόμενον" καὶ τὸν μὸν ἐμτ τὰ οὐδείς mw 
᾿ ἀπεκάλυψεν : “TI am all that hath 
been, is, and shall be, and my veil hath 
no mortal ever uncovered.” Inscription 
on the Temple of Sais, ap. Plutarch. De 
Uside, - Again, τὸν πρῶτον Θεὸν τῷ παντὶ 
τὸν αὐτὸν νομί . Plutarch, from Hee- 
ateous, De Iside et Osiri. See Cudworth, 
τι, ch. rv. pp. 170, 176. All that Cud- 


worth adduces, and it is well worth 
reading, shows that the Egyptians were 
genuine Pantheists. 

4 See Faber, Pagan Idolatry, B. τ. ch. 
I 


II. 

5 See Sir W. Jones’s Works, 1. p. 252; 
Maurice’s History of Hindostan and Indian 
Antiquities, passim; Faber, as above; 
Mill’s Pantheistic Theory. 

® Burton’s Bampton , note 16. 

7 “Jupiter est quodcumque vides, ἡ 
ene moveris.’’ Lucan, rx. 580. 
also Virg. . 111. 60, Georg. τν. 219, 
in. v1. 724; Lueret, 1. 61. 

«8. Sir W. Jones’s Works, 1. p. 249. 


Sze. 17 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 21 


invisible, yet everything you see is God.!_ Accordingly, the Deity 
himself becomes identified with the worshipper. ‘‘ He, who knows 
that Deity, is the Deity itself’? Hence, as all living beings, are 
manifestations of, and emanations from the Deity, the devout 
Brahmin or Buddhist, while he believes that by piety man may 
become more and more truly God, looks forward, as his final con- 
summation and bliss, to Nirwana, or absorption in the Deity. 

This system of religion or philosophy, which has prevailed so 
extensively in heathendom, and found favour with the early phil- 
osophic heretics, and probably with the brethren of the free spirit 
in the twelfth century,’ was taught in the seventeenth century 
by Benedict de Spinoza, a Portuguese Jew,* and has been called 
from him Spinozism. Some of the philosophic divines of Ger- 
many have revived it of late, and have taught it as the solution 
of all the Christian mysteries; so that with them the Christ or 
God-man is not the individual personal Jesus: but mankind is 
God made man, the miracle-worker, the sinless one; who dies 
and rises, and ascends into heaven, and through faith in whom 
man is justified. 


The history of the Szconp part of this Article, that is, of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, may be considered as almost equivalent 
to the history of Christianity. 

I. What degree of knowledge of it there may have been pre- 
viously to the coming of Christ, is a question of great interest, 
but of great difficulty. This question, as regards Scripture, must 
be deferred to the next section; here it is considered by the light 
of history alone. 

It has been thought, with considerable reason, that there are 
distinct intimations of it (1) in the Jewish writings, (2) in the 
mythology of most ancient nations, (3) in the works of Plato and 
other philosophers. 

1. The Jewish Targums and Philo-Judzeus "both speak fre- 
quently of the Word of the Lord. ‘The latter may possibly have 
been indebted to philosophic sources. This can hardly be con- 
jectured with probability of the former; and, although none of 
them are much earlier than the Christian era, there is no doubt 


1 Sir W. Jones’s Works, 1. Ὁ. 252. nemann, p. 824. Giordano Bruno, in the 
Ward’s Religion of the Hindoos, Iv. 274. sixteenth century, a Dominican, was 


2 Mill’s Pantheistic Theory, p. 159. burnt at Rome as a heretic, a. p. 1600, 
8 Mosheim, Cent. x11. pt. 11. ch. v. for holding opinions very similar to Pan- 
§ 10. theism. See Tennemann, p. 288. 


* Mosheim, Cent. xv1r. §§ 1, 24; Ten- 


OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 


that they speak the language and contain the tradition of former 

8. Passages, such as that in the Targum, in Psalm ex., where 
“the Lord said unto my Lord” is rendered “the Lord said unto 
His Word,” and many like it, seem, at first sight at least, very 
clearly to indicate a notion of Personal plurality in the Divine 
Unity.' Yet, of late, a different opinion has prevailed concerning 
the signification of the term Memra or Word (τ ΜΓ) used 
in the Targums; it being contended, that the phrase means not 
a distinct and separate Person, but is, in fact, only another form 
of the pronoun “ Himself.” Both views have found able advo- 
cates, and may be supported by considerable arguments; and 
therefore the question concerning the Jewish opinions on the 
Trinity must be considered as one which is not fully decided. 

2. In the mythology of almost all nations, it is plain that the 
‘number three has been a sacred number. The triads of classical 
mythology (e. g. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades; or again, Jupiter, 
Juno, and Minerva in the Capitol) are well known.’ More 
remarkable by far is the Trimourti of Hindostan. Christians 
have frequently believed that the Trimourti originated in some 
patriarchal tradition, whilst unbelievers have found in it an argu- 
ment against the Christian Faith, as being merely one develop- 
_ment of the many speculations concerning God which have pre- 
vailed in India and elsewhere. In answer to the latter, it may 
be enough to say, that the whole significance of the Trimourti 
is utterly unlike that of the Trinity, the likeness being in num- 
ber only. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, were no tripersonal unity, 
but three distinct, created divinities, embodiments of the various 
powers of nature; though subsequently both Vishnu and Siva 
were, by their respective votaries, identified with the Great 
Supreme. And, on the other hand, it is now well ascertained 
that the gods of the Trimourti were unknown to the Vedas and 
more ancient books of the Hindoos ;* so that the origin of a be- 
lief in them cannot be traced to primitive tradition, but must 


[Arr. L 


1 See Allix’s Testimony of the Ancient 
Jewish Church against the Unitarians; Bry- 
ant’s Opinions of Philo-Judeus ; Bull, Fid. 
Nic, Def. 1. 1. 16-19, 

[See also Oxlee, On the Trinity, &e., a 
πόσου, curious, and valuable work. — 


3 Burton’s Bampton Lectures, Lect. ¥11. 
Ῥ. 221, and note 98, 

ὃ Cudworth, B. 1. ch. rv. § 27, p. 819 

82, p. 470. The Jupiter, Juno, an 

inerva of the Capitol were the same as 
the three great Gods, Tinia, Cupra, and 


Menrva, who had temples in ever} Etrus- 


can city. 

4 See especially Professor Wilson’s 
translation of the Rig Veda. The legend 
of Crishna, which seemed peculiarly to 
resemble some portions of Christian his- 
tory, occurs first in the Bhayavat Gita, a 
work of about the third century a. p. 
Some part of it has probably been direct- 
ly borrowed from the Gospels, or Apoc- 
ryphal Gospels. The student may con- 
sult Rev. C. Hardwick’s Christ and other 
Masters, Part 11. 


See. 1.1 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 23 


more probably be ascribed to the eo of later Indian 
Theosophists.1 

3. Plato and some other Greek Philosophers are generally 
considered as having expounded a doctrine which bears some 
resemblance to the doctrine of the Gospels.? If it be so, we may, 
probably enough, trace his sentiments to some like source of 
patriarchal tradition or Jewish creed. Some think Plato had it 
of Pherecydes of Syros, who may perhaps have learned it from 
some Eastern source. Others, that, according to the testimony of 
Numenius, Plato gained a knowledge of Hebrew doctrine during 
his thirteen years’ residence in Egypt. But, on the other hand, 
it has been argued, that Plato’s view of the Logos was utterly 
unlike the Christian belief in the Trinity. It is said, he never 
spoke of the Word or “ Reason of God as a distinctly existing 
~ person ; it was only a mode or relation in which the operations of 
the Deity might be contemplated.”* After the Christian Revela- 
tion, indeed, philosophic Christians, and still more philosophic 
heretics, early used Platonic terms to express Christian doctrine. 
Hence the language of philosophy became tinged with the lan- 
guage of Christianity: hence, too, at a very early period, the 
heretics, using the language of Platonism, corrupted Christianity 
with Platonic philosophy. Hence, again, St. John, who wrote, 
after the rise of such heretics, uses language which they had 
introduced; yet not in their sense of such language, but with 
the very object of correcting their errors. It is clear then, that, 
in more ways than one, we may account for the fact that St. 
John used terms which had been used before the Christian Rev- 
elation ; and the sneer of the infidel, which hints that he learned 
his doctrine from Plato, becomes harmless and unmeaning.® 

II. When once the mystery of the Trinity had been revealed in 
the Gospel, it became the fundamental doctrine of the Christian 
faith. Yet we must not expect to find the first Christian writers 
using the same technical language to express their belief in it, 
which afterwards became necessary, when heresy sprang up, and 
controversy gave rise to definite controversial terms. Unitarian 
writers have charged Justin Martyr (a. p. 150) with being the first 


1 On the Trinity of Zoroaster and the asks, “ What is Plato, but Moses in At- 
Magi, see Cudworth, Jntell. Syst. B. 1. tic?” see Lardner’s Test. of Anc. Heathens, 
ch. tv. §16, ἄς. On ‘the appearance ofa ch.xxxyv. Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish 
Trinity in the Egyptian Pantheism, see Church, ch. xx111. Ὁ. 286. 

§ 18, τι. p. 194. 4. See Burton, Bampton Lect. p. 213. 

2 On Plato’s Trinity, see Cudworth,B. ὅ Burton’s Bampton Lect. eck Vil. 
1. ch. iv. ὃ 24. x1. p. 800. § 34. m1. and note 90. 
pp. 54, 82, &e. © Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, ch. xv. 

8 On the statement of Numenius, who 


OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. 1. 


to introduce “the Platonic doctrine of a second God” into Chris- 
tianity; that is to say, they have admitted that Justin Martyr 
speaks of Christ as God, but deny that the Apostolic fathers held 
the doctrines of Trinitarianism. Such assertions, however un- 
founded, render the doctrines of the Apostolical fathers not a little 
important; as it could hardly fail to puzzle us, if we found the 
earliest Christians and their most famous pastors ignorant of what 
we have learned to esteem the groundwork of the faith. 

There is certainly nothing in the subjects treated of by any 
of the Apostolical fathers, to lead them naturally to set forth a 
distinct acknowledgment of the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the 
Divinity of Jesus Christ; and many expressions might occur of 
love to Christ and reverence for Him, without a distinct enuncia- 
tion of the doctrine of His Godhead. It is therefore the more 
remarkable and satisfactory, when we find, as we do, in all the 
works ascribed to those fathers commonly called Apostolical, pas- 
sages which seem distinctly to assert the Deity of Jesus Christ, 
and so, at least by implication, the doctrine of the Trinity. Ισ- 
natius, especially, is so clear on this point, that the only possible 
way of evading the force of his testimony is to deny the genuine- 
ness of his epistles. A majority of learned men are of opinion 
that this question has been well nigh set at rest by Bp. Pearson in 
his Vindicice Ignatiane} 


1 The following passages exhibit some 

of the testimonies of the Apostolic fa- 
thers to the Divinity of Christ, and. by 
implication, to the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity :— 
Clemens Romanus. “‘ The Sceptre of the 
Majesty of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, 
came not in the show of pride and arro- 
gance, though he might have done so.” 
(1 Cor. xvi.) “Being content with the 
portion Gop had dispensed to you; and 
hearkening diligently to His word, ye 
were enlarged in your bowels, having 
HIS SUFFERINGS always before your 
eyes.” (1 Cor. ii. See also chapters xxxii. 
xxxvi. xlv. &e.) 

Jqnatius calls our Saviour “ Jesus Christ 
our God,” (in the Inscription to the Epis- 
tles to the Ephesians and Romans, also 
in Trail. 7, Rom. iii.) speaks of “ the blood 
of God,” (Eph. i.) “the passion of πὶ 
God,” (Rom. vi.) says, “" Ϊ glorify God, 
even Jesus Christ.” (Smyrn. i.) “ When 
God was manifested in human form (ἀ:- 
ϑρωπίνως) for newness of eternal life.’ 
(Eph. xix.) “There is one Physician, 
both fleshly and spiritual, made and not 
made, God incarnate ; true life in death ; 
both of Mary and of God; first passible, 


then impassible ; even Jesus Christ our 
Lord.” (Eph. vii.) “ Expect Him, who 
is above all time, eternal, invisible, 
though for our sakes made visible, who 
was intangible, impassible ; yet for our 
sakes became subject to suffering, endur- 
ing all manner of ways for us.” (dgn. 
to Polye. iii.) “ God, who was manifested 
by His Son Jesus Christ, who is the 
Eternal Word, not coming forth from si- 
lence.” (Magn. viii.) 

The Trinity of Persons in the God- 
head is plainly referred to in such pas- 
sages as these : — 

“Study that so.... ye may prosper 
in body and spirit, in faith and charity 
—in the Son, and in the Father, and in 
the Spirit — in the beginning and in the 
end;” and again, “ Be subject ΝΣ 
bishop and to one another, as Jesus 
Christ to the Father, according to the 
flesh, and as the Apostles both to Christ 
and the Father, and the Holy Ghost.” 
(Magn. xiii.) 

Polycarp speaks most clearly in the 
doxology ascribed to him, as some of his 
last words, in the Circular Epistle of the 
Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom 9) 
Polycarp. 


Src. 1.1 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 25 


Justin Martyr, a.p. 150, is the first early Christian writer of 
whom we have any considerable remains. If he does not state 
the doctrine of the Trinity in the form of the Nicene or Athana- 
sian Creeds, he yet clearly and constantly asserts that the Son is 
God, of one substance and nature with the Father, and yet numer- 
ically distinct from Him.! The word Trinity occurs in a treatise 
attributed to Justin Martyr (De Expositione Fidei) ; but this work 
is generally allowed to be spurious. The first use of this term is 
therefore commonly ascribed to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, 
a. D. 181, who speaks of the three days of creation, which preceded 
the creation of the sun and moon, as ‘‘ types of the Trinity, namely, 


of God, His Word, and His Wisdom.” 2 : 


“For this, and for all things else, I 
praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, 
by the eternal and heavenly High Priest, 
Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with 
whom, to Thee and the Holy Ghost, be 
glory both now and to all succeeding 
ages, Amen.” Martyrdom of Polyc. xtv. 
On this passage see Waterland, 11. p. 
282. 


A vindication of Clement of Rome 
and Polycarp from the imputation of 
Arianism may be found in Bull, /. D. 1. 


Barnabas, whose Epistle, though per- 
haps not the work of the Apostle of 
that name, is doubtless the work of one 
who lived nearly contemporaneously 
with the other Apostolical fathers, 
writes: ‘For this cause the Lord was 
content to suffer for our souls, although 
He be the Lord of the whole earth; to 
whom God said before the beginning of 
the world, ‘Let us make man in our 
image.’ ” (Barnub. c. v.) Again, “ You 
have in this, also, the glory of Jesus, 
that by Him and for Him are all things.” 
ὅτι ἐν Αὐτῷ πάντα, καὶ εἰς Αὐτόν (c. X11. 
See Bull, λ΄. 2. τ. 2, 2.) 

Hermas, who is reckoned an Apostolical 
father, and was certainly a writer not 
later than the middle of the second cen- 
tury, has the following: ‘‘The Son is 
indeed more ancient than any creature, 
inasmuch as He was in counsel with the 
Father at the creation of all things.” 
(Simil. 1x. 12.) “The Name of the Son 
of God is great, and without bounds, and 
the whole world is supported by it.” 
(Simil. x. 14.) 

Concerning the genuineness of the 
_ seven shorter Epistles of Ignatius, see 
Pearson’s Vindicie Iqnat. in the second 
volume of Cotelerii Patres Apostolict. A 
Synopsis of his Arguments is given in 
Dupin’s Eccles. Hist., in the Life of Igna- 

4 


tius. See also Bp. Horsley’s Works, 
Iv. p. 188. Dr. Burton (Testimonies 
of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 14) enu- 
merates the following, as great names to 
be ranked on the same side with Bp. 
Pearson in holding that the genuineness 
of these Epistles has been fully proved. 
I. Vossius, Ussher, Hammond, Petavius, 
Grotius, Bull, Cave, Wake, Cotelerius, 
Grabe, Dupin, Tillemont, Le Clerc, Lard- 
ner, Horsley, &c. On the opposite side 
he reckons Salmasius, Blondel, Dalleus, 
Priestley. 

Since the discovery of the Syriac Ver- 
sion of the Epistles of Ignatius, and their 
publication by Mr. Cureton, a new con- 
troversy has arisen; namely, whether the 
three Epistles in the Syriac be the only 
genuine, and the seven shorter Greek 
Epistles deserving of acceptance only so 
far as they agree with the Syriac. 
Whatever may be the ultimate fate of 
this controversy, it is most satisfactory 
to know that even the three Syriac Epis- 
tles contain some of the strongest of 
those passages, in the Seven Greek Epis- 
tles, which prove the writer’s belief in 
the true Deity of Christ. 

1 An example of his mode of speaking 
may be seen in the following short pas- 
sage from Apol. 1. c. 63: ‘They, who 
say that the Son is the Father, are con 
victed of neither knowing the Father, 
nor of understanding, that the God of 
the universe has a Son, who, being the 
First-born Word of God, is also God.” 
Of Justin’s sentiments on the Logos and 
the Trinity, see Bull, δ΄, D. 11.4; Water- 
land, 111. pp. 157, 246; Burton’s Testimo- 
nies of Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 30; Bp. 
Kaye’s Just. Mart. ch. 11. where also, in 
the Appendix, is an account of the opin- 
ions of Tatian, Athenagoras, and The- 
ophilus of Antioch. 

2 Ad Autolycum, Lib. 11. p. 106. τύποι 


26 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. L 


Ireneeus, A.D. 185, gives something like regular forms of creeds, 
greatly resembling the Apostles’ Creed (see 1. 9, rv. 83). His 
statements of the Deity of Christ are singularly clear, and he ex- 
pressly tells us that the Seriptures would never have given to any 
one absolutely the name of God, unless he were truly God.? 

There is a well-known passage in a heathen author, somewhat 
earlier than Irenzus, (the Philopatris of Lucian,) which shows the 
received doctrine of the Church, at which he sneers, more plainly 
perhaps than if the words had been those of a Christian. There 
is a doubt whether the work is Lucian’s or not; but its genuine- 
ness is not of much consequence, if, as is generally admitted, it 
was either his writing, or that of some contemporary of his.? 

Tertullian, a.p. 200, both distinctly propounds the doctrine of 
the Trinity, and is the first Latin who uses the term Trinitas.* 

We might trace the chain onwards through Clement of Alex- 

andria, Origen, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Dionysius, and so down to 
the Council of Nice. Some may see in the bold speculations of 
Origen the germ of heresy even on the important doctrine of the 
Trinity ; and Dionysius of Alexandria, in his zeal against Sabellius, 
appears to have been led into some heedless expressions. There 
is, however, little doubt that Origen was a firm believer in the 
Trinity ; and the expressions of Dionysius, which called forth the 
censure of his brethren, were afterwards fully and satisfactorily 
explained. Thus all the early fathers who continued in the com- 
munion of the Catholic Church, are unanimous in their testimony 
to the faith of that Church in one God and three Persons in the 
Godhead. 

Some, even, who were charged with schism or heresy, as Monta- 
nus and Novatian, were yet clear and decided in their language on 


τῆς Τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ, 
καὶ τῆς Σοφίας αὐτοῦ. On his doctrine, 
consult Bull, 2 20. 11. 4, 10. 
1Tren. 111. ¢. vr. § 1; Burton, Ante-Ni- 
cene Fathers, p. 68, where see the testi- 
mony of Ireneus at length; also in Bull, 
F. D. 1: δ, and Beaven’s Account of Ire- 
neus, ch. rv, 
2 The passage is—Kpr. Kal τίνα ἐπο- 
μόσωμαΐ ye; "ἴοι, “ψιμέδοντα Θεὸν, μέγαν, 
ροτον, οὐρανίωνα, υἱὸν πατρὸς, πνεῦμα 
ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ἕν ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ 
ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία. 

Ὁ ΚΕ. 4. Adv. Praxeam, c. 111, “Ttaque duos 
et tres jam jactitant a nobis predicari, se 
vero unius Dei cultores presumunt, qua- 
si non et unitas inrationaliter collecta 
heresim faciat, et Trinitas rationaliter 
expensa veritatem constituat.”’ 


Dr. Hey, in his lectures on the First 
Article, observes that the charge, which 
the heretics made against the Catholics, 
of holding three Gods, is to him the 
strongest evidence that the Catholics 
held the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Tertullian distinctly illustrates the con- 
substantiality of the Persons in the God- 
head, by introducing the comparison of 
the sun, and a ray from the sun, or light 
kindled from light. As the substance of 
the light remains the same, though a ray 
has been sent forth, or another light kin- 
dled, “so what proceeds from God is both 
God and the Son of God, and both are 
one.” Apol.c.xx1. See Bull, δ. D.11.7; 
Burton, p. 162 ; and Bp. Kaye’s 7ertullian, 

. 558, where the ambiguity of some of 
ertullian’s language is fully considered 


Src. 17 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. oT 


this head. Bingham! has collected abundant proof, that the de- 
votions of the ancient Church were paid to every Person of the 
Blessed Trinity. 

Bishop Bull, in his Fider Nicene Defensio, and Dr. Burton, in 
his Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, have given fully the 
testimonies of the fathers to the Godhead of Christ before the 
Council of Nice. To their works the student may refer for farther 
evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly and fully 
maintained by the early Christian writers from the first.” 

But, though the Church was thus sound at heart, it had been 
declared by the Apostle that “there must needs be heresies, that 
the approved might be made manifest ;” and we find, that, even 
during the lifetimes and labours of the Apostles themselves, ‘“ the 
mystery of iniquity did already work,” which soon after was re- 
vealed in the monstrous forms of Gnosticism and other Antichris- 
tian heresies. 

It is plain from St. Paul’s Epistles, that there were two evil 
elements, even then, at work, to corrupt the faith and divide the 
Church. Those elements were Judaism and Eastern Philosophy. 
The Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy, 
and the writings of St. John, abound with allusions to these dan- 
gers. The “Philosophy falsely so called” (γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος, 
and the seeking justification by the Jewish Law, are the constant 
topics of the Apostle’s warning. ‘There are also two points de- 
serving of particular notice: first, that these warnings are especial- 
ly given to the Churches of Proconsular Asia ;* secondly, that St. 
Paul evidently connects with his warnings against both these errors 
earnest enforcement of the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity.* 

Accordingly, in the early history of the Church, we find two 
classes of false opinions, the one derived from a mixture of the 
Gospel with Judaism, the other from a like mixture with Oriental 
or Platonic philosophy, and both tending to a denial of the mystery 
of the Trinity, and of the supreme Godhead of Jesus Christ. As 
was most probable, the Eastern rather than the Western Church, 
and especially, in the first instance, the Churches of Asia Minor, 


The use of the word Trinity, first to 
be found in Greek in Theophilus, and in 
Latin in Tertullian, received synodical 
authority in the Council of Alexandria, 
A.D. 817. 

1 Eccl. Antig. Book x11. ch. 11. 

2 See also Bull’s Primitiva Traditio ; 
Waterland, On the Trinity ; Faber’s Apos- 
tolicity of Trinitarianism. 

8 50. John lived latterly at Ephesus, and 


especially addresses the Churches of 
Asia. Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, 
and St. Paul’s most marked allusions to 
philosophical heresy are in the Epistles 
to Timothy, the Ephesians, and the Co- 
lossians. 

* This may be especially seen in such 
passages as Eph. i. 23; Col. i. 15, 19; ii. 
: ; 1 Tim. iii. 16, compared with iv. 1, 2, 


28 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. L 


and afterwards the Church of Antioch, were the birthplaces of the 
heresiarchs and of their heresies. These Churches exhibited, in- 
dependently of distinct heresy, a considerable tendency to Judaism. 
The celebrated controversy about Easter first arose from the 
Churches of Proconsular Asia adopting the Jewish computation, 
in which they were followed by the Church of Antioch.1 Again, 
in the East it was that the Judaical observance of the Sabbath, or 
seventh day of the week, prevailed; which is first condemned by 
St. Paul,? then by Ignatius,? and afterwards by the Council of 
Laodicea. ᾿ 

The earliest heretics of whom we read are Simon Magus and 
the Nicolaitans, both mentioned in Scripture; who adopted, ac- 
cording to Ecclesiastical history, the Gnostic philosophy, and 
endeavoured to combine it with the Gospel. Gnosticism, in its 
more developed form, seems to have taught, that the one Supreme 
Intelligence, dwelling in darkness unapproachable, gave existence 
to a line of AXons, or heavenly spirits, who were all, more or less, 
partakers of His nature, (ὦ. 6. of a nature specifically the same,) 
and included in His glory (πλήρωμα), though individually separate 
from the Sovereign Deity.’ Of these AZons, Christ or the Logos 
was the chief, —an emanation from God, therefore, but not God 
Himself, although dwelling in the Pleroma, the special habitation, 
and probably the Bosom of God. Here then we see, that the 
philosophic sects were likely to make our Lord but an emanation 
from God, not one with Him. 

Cerinthus,® a heretic of the first century, is by some considered 
more as a Judaizer, by others more as a Gnostic or philosophic 
heretic. It is probable that he combined both errors in one. 
But early in the second century we meet with the Nazarenes and 
Ebionites, who undoubtedly owed their origin to Judaism, although, 
like others, they may have introduced some admixture of phi- 
losophy into their creed.’ All these held low opinions of the 
Person and nature of Christ. The Cerinthians are said to have 
held the common Gnostic doctrine, that Jesus was a mere man, 
with whom the AZon Christ was united at baptism. The Nazarenes 
are supposed to have held the birth of a Virgin, and to have 
admitted that Jesus was in a certain manner united to the Divine 
Nature. The Ebionites, on the other hand, are accused of esteem- 


1 See Newman’s Arians, ch. 1. § 1. 6 See Mosheim, Cent. 1. pt. 11. ch. v. 
2 Col. ii. 16. 16. 
8 Ignat. Ad Magnes. xv111. 7 Mosheim, Cent. 11. pt. τι. ch. v. 


4 Can. xxix. See Suicer, 11. p. 922. §§ 2, 8. 8.60 also Burton’s Bam ton Leo- 
δ᾽ Newman’s Arians, ch. 11. § 4, p. 206. tures, p. 247. 


Src. I.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 29 


ing Christ the son of Joseph and ΜΝ though with a heavenly 
mission and some portion of Divinity. 

Here we have almost, if not quite, in Apostolic times, the 
germ at least of all false doctrine on the subject of the Trinity. 
Such heretics, indeed, as have. been mentioned were at once looked 
on as enemies to, not professors of, the Gospel; and were esteemed, 
according to the strong language of St. John, not Christians but 
Antichrists. 

In the latter part of the second century, the Church of Rome, 
which had been peculiarly free from heresy, was troubled by the 
errors of Theodotus and Artemon. . They are generally looked on 
as mere humanitarians; but they probably held that Christ was a 
man endued with a certain Divine energy, or some portion of the 
‘Divine nature.? 

The end of the same century witnessed the rise of another 
heresy of no small consequence. Praxeas, of whose opinions we 
can form a more definite notion from Tertullian’s treatise against 
him, asserted the doctrine that there was but one Person in the 
Godhead. That one Person he considered to be ‘both Father and 
Son; and was therefore charged with holding that the Father 
suffered, whence his followers were called Patripassians.? 

Noetus (A.D. 220) of Smyrna, and after him Sabellius of 
Pentapolis in Africa (A. Ὁ. 255), held a similar doctrine ; which has 
since acquired the name of Sabellianism. Its characteristic pecu- 
larity is a denial of the three Persons in the Trinity, and the 
belief that the Person of the Father, who is one with the Son, was 
incarnate in Christ. But a more heretical and dangerous form of 
the doctrine made, not the Godhead, but an emanation only from 
the Godhead, to have dwelt in Jesus; and thus what we may call 
the low Sabellians bordered on mere humanitarians, and also nearly 
symbolized on this important subject with Valentinus and other 
‘Gnostics, who looked on the supreme AXon, Christ or the Logos, as 
an emanation from God, which dwelt in J esus, and waists from 
Jesus to the Pleroma of God. 

Beryllns, Bishop of Bozrah, seems to have taken up this form 


i Cent. τι. pt. τι. ch. v. Jesus. (See Burton’s Bampton Lectures, 


p. 247.) This should seem to show that 


? Theodotus, having denied his faith 
in persecution, excused himself by say- 
ing, that he had not denied God, but 
man; he; according to Eusebius, being 
the first who asserted that Jesus Christ 
was a mere man; for all former heretics 
had admitted at least some Divinity in 


Theodotus was a mere humanitarian. 

8 See Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam ; also 
Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 526 ; Mosheim, 
Cent. 11. pt. 11. ch. v. § 20. "Praxeas is 
placed a. p. 200. He propagated his 
opinions at Rome. 


30 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Arr. 1. 


of Sabellianism. He was converted by the arguments of Origen. 
But, not long after, Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, the most 
important see in Asia, a man supported by the influence of the 
famous Zenobia, professed a creed which some have considered 
pure humanitarianism ; but which was evidently, more or less, what 
has been called the Emanative, in contradistinction to the Patripas- 
sian, form of Sabellianism. He held, ‘that the Son and the Holy 
Ghost exist in God, in the same manner as the faculties of reason 
and activity do in man ;! that Christ was a mere man; but that the 
Reason or Wisdom of the Father descended into him, and by him 
wrought miracles upon earth, and instructed the nations; and 
finally, that, on account of this union of the Divine Word with the 
man Jesus, Christ might, though improperly, be called God.” 
Several councils were called in consequence of this spiritual wick- 
edness in high places; and although the rhetoric and sophistry of 
Paulus for a time baffled his opponents, he was finally condemned 
by the Council of Antioch (a. Ὁ. 264),. and dispossessed of his 
bishopric by Aurelian (A.D. 272), after having held it, in spite 
of condemnation, by the aid of Zenobia.* 

The controversies which these various errors gave rise to, 
naturally tended to unsettle men’s minds, and to introduce strife 
about words; and so paved the way for the most formidable heresy 
that has probably ever disturbed the Christian Church. Arius, a 
native of Antioch, but a presbyter of Alexandria, began by charg- 
ing his bishop, Alexander, with Sabellianism. It is most probable, 
that, as his predecessor Dionysius, in his zeal against Sabellianism, 
had been betrayed into incautious expressions, seeming to derogate 
from the dignity of Christ’s Divine nature; so Alexander, in his 
zeal to maintain that dignity, may have used language not. unlike 
the language of the Patripassians. There is no doubt, however, 
that he was a sound believer in the Trinity. Arius was, from this 
beginning, led on to propound, and mould into shape, his own dan- 
gerous heresy. 

It was unlike the heresy of any of his predecessors. For, 
though some of them may have been mere humanitarians, those 
who held that the Logos dwelt in Christ, held that Logos to be 
either God, or an emanation from God, and so in some sense co- 


1He spoke of the Son of God, as Routh, Relig. Sac. Tom. 11. pp. 468, 469. 
being an unsubsisting knowledge or energy, Bull, Pid. Nic, Def. Lib. 111. 6. IV. 
ἐπιστήμη ἀνυπόστατος. In opposition to | * See Mosheim, Cent, 11. pt. 11. ch. y. 
which, the fathers of the Council of An- §15; Newman’s Arians; Burton’s Bamp- 
tioch speak of Him as ζῶσαν ἐνέργειαν καὶ ton , note 108, 

ἐνυπόστατον, a living and subsisting energy. 


OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 31 


eternal and consubstantial. Arius and his followers, on the con- 
trary, held that there was a period} when the Son of God was 
not (ἦν πότε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), and that He was created by God, of a 
substance which once was not (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). They called Him by 
the name of God, and allowed to Him, in terms, all the attributes 
of God, but denied that He was homo-ousios, of one Substance 
with the Father,? or in any sense one with Him. The true Logos 
they esteemed to be merely the Wisdom, an attribute of God; 
but the Son they held to have been created before all worlds, and 
so far enlightened by the Wisdom of ‘God, that He might, though 
improperly, be called the Logos, and that by Him God made the 
world, They said of Him, that, before He was created or begot- 
ten, He did not exist (πρὶν γεννηθῇ, οὐκ ἦν), and they explained the 
title of μονογενής, Only-Begotten, as though it meant Begotten by 
God alone, γεννηθεὶς παρὰ μόνου.8 

Here we see a second and created God introduced into the 
Christian Theology. The Patripassians, on the one hand, had 
denied the Trinity of Persons; the Valentinians and Manichees, 
on the contrary, are accused of saying that there were three 
unconnected, independent Beings in the Godhead.* But Arianism 
taught distinctly the existence of one, or two beings, who were 
to be worshipped as God, and yet were neither one nor of the 
same nature with the Father. The inevitable ter.dency of this 
was either to direct Polytheism, or more probably and naturally 

to Humanitarianism.® 
The Council of Nice, consisting of 318 bishops, was summoned 
in 825 by Constantine the Great; which condemned Arianism, 
established the doctrine of the homo-ousion (ὦ. 6. that the Son was 
consubstantial with the Father), and drew up the Creed which 
now bears the name of Nicene, with the exception of the clauses 
which follow the words “I believe in the Holy* Ghost.” Arian- 
ism, thus checked for a time, soon revived again. Constantine 
was convinced that Arius had been unjustly banished, and. re- 
ealled him. His son Constantius, who ruled first in the East, 
and then over the whole empire, and afterwards Valens, who 


Src. 1.] 


1 He avoided saying “ time” (χρόνος) ; 
because he appears to have admitted that 
the production of the Logos was before 
all time. See Neander, Church History, 
1v. p. 4. London, Bohn, 1851. 

2 Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 1. p. 185. 
(fol. Lond. 1723.) 

ὃ This was the fallacy of Eunomius. 
See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 11. p. 188. 


* The Apostolical Canons mention and 
condemn certain persons, who baptized 
in the name of three unoriginated prin- 
ciples, τρεῖς ἀνάρχους. Can. Apost. c. 49. 
And the first Council of Bracara says 
that the Gnostics and Priscillianists in- 
troduced 4 Trinity of Trinities. See 
Bingham, B. x1. ch. 111. ὃ 4. 

5 See Newman’s Arians, ch. 11. § 5. 


82 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 


ruled also in the East, favoured the Arians. Partly by this pow- 
erful patronage, partly by subtilty of argument, and partly in 
consequence of the prevalence of Judaizing or philosophic doctrine, 
this dangerous heresy, or some modification of it, spread exten- 
sively, especially in the Eastern Churches. The famous Athana- 
sius, Bishop of Alexandria, exhibited unbounded zeal and courage 
in defending the Catholic faith, and suffered greatly from the 
persecution of the Arians. There then arose a variety of sects, 
with more or less of the Arian tenets; such as the Eusebians, 
Anomeeans, Semi-Arians. The latter adopted as their symbol 
the term homoi-ousios, of like substance, instead of homo-ousios, 
of one substance. From among the latter sprang Macedonius. 
The pure Arians, and those who symbolized with them, — the 
Anomeeans, and Eunomians, and Semi-Arians,— appear to have 
held that the Holy Ghost, like the Son, was a created being. 
Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, whose followers were called 
Macedonians, or Pneumatomachi, seems to have been more ortho- 
dox on the Person of the Son, but to have esteemed, like the 
Arians, that the Holy Ghost was a creature. This heresy was 
condemned at the second General Council at Constantinople, a.p. 
881; which added to the Nicene Creed the clauses which follow 
“T believe in the Holy Ghost.”? With this Council the struggles 
between the Catholics and the Arians ended. Arianism thence- 
forth became a heresy excommunicated and detached from the 
Church.’ It found refuge for some time with the Gothic invaders 
of the Empire, who persecuted the Catholics; but at length | 
declined and became extinct. ; 
After this, we hear of a sect of Tritheists in the sixth century, 
the principal defender of whose doctrine was Philoponus of 
Alexandria.* 
ν The discussions between the Nominalists and Realists of the 
Middle Ages often led to something like erroneous statements 
of the Trinitarian question. The Nominalists were charged with 


(Arr. L 


teaching Tritheism, and, their 


1 “ Macedoniani sunt a Macedonio Con- 
stantinopolitane ecclesie episcopo, quos 
et Πνευματομέχους Greci dicunt, eo quod 
de Spiritu Sancto litigent. Nam de 
Patre et Filio recte sentiunt, quod unius 


‘sint ejusdemque substantie, velessentie: ὁ 


sed de Spiritu Sancto hoc nolunt eredere, 
creaturam Eum esse dicentes.””—§, Au- 


founder, Roscellinus, was con- 


᾿ 2 With the exception of course of the 
famous “ Filioque.” 

8 Much information on the terms of 
the controversy may be found by turn- 
ing to the words Τριάς, ὑπόστασις, οὐσία, 
ὕσιος, "Apetoc, Ἡμιάρειοι, Πνεῦμα (6), 
πνευματομάχος, &e., in Suicer’s Thesaurus. 


‘See also Bp. Kaye’s History of the Council 


Hares. 52. See Pearson, On the of Ni 


t. 
Creed, p. 816, note, Art, vu1r. 


tcea. 
4 See Suicer, s. v. Τριϑεῖται, and Mee 
heim, Cent. vi. pt. a1 ch. v. § 10. 


Src. L] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. | 33 


demned by the Council of Soissons, a.p. 1092. A subsequent 
synod at the same place, A. D. 1121, condemned Abelard, another 
famous reasoner of the same school, for errors on the subject of 
the Trinity; though what his errors were is a question of some 
difficulty. His great opponent, St. Bernard, charged him with 
nothing short of Arianism.’ 

After the Reformation, when freedom of opinion was  intro- 
duced, and an unsettled state of mind naturally sprang from vio- 
lent changes, several heretics arose, who denied the doctrine of 
the Trinity. Servetus, a Spaniard, in 1531, taught a doctrine 
like that of the low or emanative Sabellians; that Christ, who 
was born of the Virgin, was united to one of the two personal 
representations or modes of existence, which God, before the world, 
had produced within Himself. He was apprehended by Calvin, 
on his way through Geneva, and put to death.? 

Several other sects of Arians and Anti-Trinitarians arose about 
this time ; some of which took refuge in Poland, as the country 
of most religious liberty. They called themselves Unitarians. In 
the Cracow Catechism, which they published as their confession 
of faith, they plainly deny the Divinity of the Son and of the 
Spirit, making Jesus Christ but a prophet of God. 

In the mean time, Leelius and Faustus Socinus constructed the 
system which bears their name. They were natives of Tuscany, 
which they left from hatred to Romanism ; and Faustus after his 
uncle’s death joined the Unitarians of Poland, and there taught 
his doctrines, which soon spread into Hungary, Holland, and 
England. He professed that Luther had begun, but that he 
would perfect the Reformation; which was incomplete whilst 
any doctrine which Rome had held remained to be believed. 
His fundamental error was, that Scripture should be received as 
truth, but be made to bend to reason. He taught, that Jesus 
was born of a virgin, and, having been translated to heaven, was 
instructed in God’s will, and endued with that portion of the 
Divine power called the Holy Ghost. He then came down as 
a teacher of righteousness. Those who obey him shall be saved. 
The disobedient shall be tormented for a time, and then annihi- 
lated. In a certain sense, Socinus allowed Christ to be called 
God, and worshipped. But his followers have generally looked 


1“Cum de Trinitate loquitur, sapit din. Epist. 192; apud Cave, Hist. Lit. p. 
Arium ; cum de Gratia, sapit Pela- 652. 
gium; cum de Persona Christi, sapit * Mosheim, Cent. xvi. pt. 11. ch. rv. 
Nestorium.”’—Bernard, Ad Guidon. Car- § 3. 
5 


ay eee ee ee ee ee αν 
. A 


84 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. fArr. 1. 


on Him as a mere man; following herein that sect of Socinians 
whose first leader was Budnzeus.} 

In the Reformed Church of England, in the beginning of the 
eighteenth century, Mr. Whiston, Professor of Mathematics at 
Cambridge, adopted and maintained the Arian doctrine, or a slight 
modification of it.2 And Dr. Samuel Clarke, a man of learning 
and unblemished character, maintained the subordination of the 
Persons in the Godhead in so objectionable a form as to lay 
himself open to the charge of Arianism, or semi-Arianism. The 
masterly works of Waterland on the Trinity were many of them 
called forth by the unsound views of Dr. Clarke. 

Later in the century, Priestley advocated with learning and 
skill, though without accuracy or caution, the far more heretical 
doctrines of the Socinians, or rather of the pure humanitarians. 
Those writings of Bishop Horsley are considered as of most value 
which are directed against Priestley. 

It has been observed, that the various bodies of Presbyterian 
Christians, both in Great Britain and on the Continent, have had 
a considerable tendency to lapse into Socinianism, with the ex- 
ception of the Kirk of Scotland, which has maintained a most 
honourable superiority to all other Presbyterians, partly, no doubt, 
because — unlike the generality of them —she strictly guards the 
Creeds of the Church, and other formularies of the faith. 

In Germany and Switzerland the rationalism which so gener- 
ally prevails among foreign Protestants has been favourable to 
Unitarian views of the Godhead, and humanitarian doctrines 
concerning Christ. 





Section IT.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


helen thus far given a history of the doctrine contained in 
this Article, I proceed to the proof from Scripture. 

So much of the subject may seem to belong to natural religion 
that we might easily be tempted to begin with proofs from reason 
alone. It appears to me, however, that, as a Christian Church 
presupposes acceptance of the Christian revelation, the proper way 
of treating the symbols and articles of a church is to prove them 


1 Mosheim, Cent. xvi. pt. 11. ch. rv. 2 [See Johnson Grant's History of” the 
§ 8; also Cent. xvir. pt. τι. ch. vr. § 2 Church of England, m1. ¢. xvu. — J. ΗΠ] 


Se. IL] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 85 


from the authentic records of that revelation. The proofs from 
reason belong rather to the department of Christian evidences. 
Yet thus much perhaps it may be necessary to premise: that the 
mystery of the doctrines contained in this Article should be con- 
_ sidered as no argument against their truth. For, as, with all our 
study, we can scarce attain to any clear understanding of the mode 
in which we exist ourselves; reason alone should teach us to look 
upon it as hardly likely, that, with any searching, we could find 
out God. The mode of His subsistence who is infinitely above 
us may probably enough be infinitely above our powers to com- 
prehend. 

According, then, to the division of the subject proposed above, 
we have to show, — ᾿ 

First, in opposition to Anthropomorphites, that “God is ἃ 
Spirit, without body, parts, or passions.” 

SECONDLY, in opposition to Pantheists, that God is a personal, 
living Being,—“ living and true, of infinite power, wisdom, and 
goodness, Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invis- 
ible,” ‘ everlasting.” 

Turvy, in opposition to Tritheists, Arians, and every kind ὦ 
of Polytheists, that God is One. 

FourtuHiy, in opposition to Arians, Sabellians, Macedonians, 
Socinians, &c., that, ‘in the Unity of the Godhead there are three 
. Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity,— the Father, the / 
Son, and the Holy Ghost.” 

I shall consider it sufficient to establish the doctrines contained 
in the first three of the foregoing propositions by simply referring 
to some of the many texts of Scripture by which they may be 
proved; reserving for the fourth and last any more extended 
arguments. 

First, then, ‘God is a Spirit, without body, parts, or passions.” 
Joh. iv. 24. Comp. Isai. xl. 18, 25. Deut. iv. 15. Luk. xxiv. 
39. Joh. i. 18; v. 87. Acts xvii. 24, 28, 29. Rom. i. 20, 21. 
1 Tim. i. 17; vi. 16. 

“Without passions” may be inferred from Num. xxiii. 19. 
Mal. iii. 6. Heb. vi. 17,18. James i. 13, 17. 

It is perhaps hardly necessary to add, that, whereas God is 
often spoken of in terms which express bodily relations, it is that 
the Infinite may in some degree be made intelligible to the finite ; 
the Almighty having been pleased to condescend to our infirmities, 
and to deal with us, as parents do with their children, teaching 
them by such figures and modes of instruction as their tender 
minds will bear. 


36 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. L 


Sxconpiy. God is ’ 

1. “‘ Living and true.” Exod. iii. 6, 14, 15; vi. 2,3. Num. 
xxvii, 16. Deut. v. 26. Josh. iii. 10. 1 Sam. xvii. 26. Ps. xiii. 
2; Ixxxiv. 2. Isai. xlii. 8. Jer. x. 10. Dan. vi. 26. Matt. xvi. 
16. Joh. xvii. 8. Acts xiv. 15. Rom. ix. 26. 2 Cor. vi. 16. 
1 Thess. i. 9. 1 Tim. iv. 10; vi. 17. Heb. x. 31. Rev. iv. 8; 
x. 5, 6. 

2. “ Of infinite power.” Gen. xvii. 1; xviii. 14. Job xlii. 2. 
Jer. xxxii. 17, 27. Matt. xix. 26. Eph. iii. 20. Rev. iv. 11; 
xix. 6. 

3. “ Wisdom.” Gen. xvi. 18. 1 Sam. ii. 8... 1 Kings viii. 39. 
Job xxvi. 6; xxviii. 10, 23, 24; xxxiv. 21. Psal. xliv. 21; xciv. 
9; exxxix. 4. Prov. xv. 3. Jer. xxiii. 28, 24. Dan. ii. 22, 28. 
Acts xv. 18. Rom. xi. 33; xvi. 27. Heb. iv. 18. 1 Joh. i. δ. 
Jude 25. 

4. **Goodness.”” Ex. xv. 11; xxxiv. 6. Lev. xi. 44. Deut. 
iv. 81. 1 Sam. ii. 2. Psal. lxxxvi. 15; exviii. 1; exlv. 8. Isai. 
vi. 8. Dan. ix. 9. Joel ii. 18. Jonah iv. 2. Mic. vii. 18. 
Luke i. 77, 78. Rom. ii. 4. 2 Cor. i.3. Eph. ii. 4. Heb. vi. 
10. 2 Pet. iti. 15. 1 Joh.iv. 8. Rev. xv. 3. 

δ. “Maker of all things, visible and invisible.”, Gen. i. ii. 
2 Kings xix. 15. Neh. ix. 6. Psal. xxxiii. 6; c. 3; cxxxv. 6. 
Acts xvii. 24. Eph. iii. 9. Col. i. 16. Heb. iii. 4. Rev. iv. 
11; x. 6. 

6. “ Preserver of all things.” Deut. xxxii. 89, ἅς. 1 Sam. 
ii. 6. 1 Chron. xxix. 11,12. ‘Job xii. 9. Psal. xxii. 28; Ixxv. 
6, T; xc. 3; xcv. 8, 4,5, 7. Isai. xiv. 27; xl. 11, 12, 13, 15, 22. 
Jer. v. 24; xviii. 6-9. Dan. v. 23. Matt. vi. 25-30; x. 29, 30. 
Rom. xi. 36. f 

T. “ Everlasting.” Gen. xxi. 88. Deut. xxxiii. 27. Psal. ix. 
7; xc. 2,4; cii. 12, 26,27. Isai. xliv. 6; lvii. 15. Lam. vy. 19. 
Rom. i. 20; xvi. 26. 1 Tim.i. 17. Rev. i. 8; v. 14; x. 6. 

Turrpiy. We have to show, in opposition to Tritheists, Arians, 
and every kind of Polytheists, that “God is One.” ‘ Hear, O 
Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. vi. 4). ‘The 
Lord, He is God, there is none else beside Him” (Deut. iv. 35). 
“Thus saith the Lord . . . Beside Me there is no God” (Is. xliv. 
6; comp. v. 8). ‘There is one God, and there is none other but 
He” (Mark xii. 32). “The only true God” (Joh. xvii. 8). 
“We know that there is none other God but One” (1 Cor, viii. 
4). “God is One” (Gal. iii. 20). ‘There is One God, and one 
Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 


Sxe. IL} OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 37 


ii. 5). ‘Thou believest that there is one God ; thou doest well” 
(Jam. ii. 19). “Denying the only Lord God” (Jude 4). “ The 
only wise God, our Saviour” (Jude 25). 

See also Ex. xx. 38. 2 Sam. xxii. 32. Psal. Ixxxvi. 10. Isai. 
xxxvil. 16; xlii. 8. Mark xii. 29. 1 Cor. vii. 6. Eph. iv. 6. 

Fourtuty. We have to show, in opposition to Sabellians, 
Arians, Macedonians, Socinians, &c., that “Τὴ the Unity of the 
Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and © 
eternity, —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” 

As regards this doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, we must not 
expect to find the same express declarations in Scripture that we 
find, for instance, of the facts, that “* God is a Spirit,” ** God is a 
righteous God,” or the like. But it by no means therefore fol- 
lows, that the one is less true than the other. It appears to have 
been far from the design of the Author of Holy Scripture to set 
down every article of Christian truth in the form of a distinct 
enunciation. Scripture is not a system of catechetical instruction, 
designed to lead us, step by step, to the knowledge of religious 
verities, and to place everything so clearly before us, that, if we 
will, we cannot mistake it. On the contrary, it is plainly intended, 
that, if we do not fear the Lord, we shall not be able to penetrate 
His secret, and that, unless our hearts are set to do His will, we 
shall not be able to know of His doctrine. If there were no other 
reason than this, we might see why many things in Scripture re- 
quire to be sought out. 

But, again, God has appointed various instruments for instruc- 
tion in His Church; all, of course, in subordination to the teaching 
of His Holy Spirit, He has bestowed upon us, first, reason ; 
secondly, Scripture ; thirdly, the ministry of His word and Sacra- 
ments. If Scripture were a regular course of catechetical teach- 
ing, so plain that it could not be mistaken, the prophetic or didac- 
tic office of the Church and the ministry would be altogether 
superseded. Again, it is evidently desirable that our reason, 
enlightened by God’s Spirit, should be exercised to the under- 
standing of His word; and one great blessing derived from this 
appointment is, that so, whilst the ignorant may find enough to 
guide them safe, the most profound and acutest intellect may find 
abundance to employ its meditations, and exercise its thoughts. 
Else, what was suited for the one might pall upon the taste of 
the other. 

Believing, then, that we are not only permitted, but called upon, 
in humble dependence on the Divine guidance, to use our reasen, 


88 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Art. 1. 


dispassionately but reverently, in order to understand what God 
has delivered to us, I shall endeavour to class together the various 
facts which Scripture has recorded concerning the nature of God, 
so far as they bear on this part of our subject; and then, by the 
common process of induction, shall hope to arrive at a just con- 
clusion from a general view of them all. 

Now these different facts of Scripture may be classed under 
four heads. 

I. Scripture teaches, that there is One God. 

II. There is, nevertheless, clear intimation of some kind of 
plurality in the Godhead, even in the old Testament; but in the 
new Testament there is a clear declaration that 

The Father is God,—the Son is God,—the Holy Ghost is 
God. 

III. This fact of the plurality is not in express terms a con- 
tradiction of the Unity; such as would be the case, if in one 
passage it were said, ‘‘ There is one God,” and in another passage, 
“ There are three Gods ;” for it appears from Scripture, that the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are but one and the same 
God. 

IV. Still, though Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are but one 
God, there is plain evidence from Scripture, that the Father is 
not the Son, nor is either of them the Holy Ghost; but that 
they are clearly distinguished from one another, and distinguished, 
too, as Personal Agents, not merely as modes, operations, or 
attributes. 

If I find these four propositions clearly established in Scrip- 
ture, I do not know what more can be required to prove the 
doctrine of this Article, that “‘in the Unity of the Godhead there 
be three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;” 
and that these three Persons are “ of one substance, power, and 
eternity.” 

I. In the first place, then, Scripture teaches us, that there is 
but one God. This has been already shown in the Turrp prin- 
cipal division of the subject. It is revealed as the fundamental 
truth of all religion. Whatever contradicts this truth is evident 
falsehood. Therefore Tritheism, which speaks of the Father, Son, 
and Spirit as three Gods, is false. Therefore Arianism, which 
speaks of the Father as the supreme God,.and of the Son as 
another inferior, subordinate God, is false. Therefore every kind 
of Polytheism is false ; for “there is one God, and there is none 
other but He.” Mark xii. 82, 


880. IL] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 39 


II. But next, plain as is this doctrine of the Unity of the 
Godhead, there are (1) in the old Testament decided intimations 
of a plurality in the Godhead, and (2) in the new Testament 
express declarations, that 

The Father is God, —the Son is God, —and the Holy Ghost 
is God. 

(1) In the old Testament there are decided intimations of a 
plurality in the Godhead. | 

The Jews indeed were placed in the midst of idolaters, them- 
selves easily tempted to idolatry ; and, being subjects of a carnal 
dispensation, were but little capable of embracing spiritual truth. 
It may therefore probably have been in mercy, to prevent the 
danger of Tritheism, that the doctrine of the Unity was so strongly 
insisted on, and so little said of a Trinity or plurality of Persons. 
Yet intimations are not wanting. 

I do not insist on the plural form of the name of God, be- 
cause the Hebrews used plurals at times to express greatness or 
intensity ; and such may have been the force of the plural in the 
name Hlohim. 

But, in the history of the Creation (Gen. i. 26, 27), it is 
certainly remarkable, that God said, “* Let ws make man in our 
image ;”’ and then it is added, **So God created man in His own 
image.” This is the more remarkable, if we compare with it what 
is said by St. Paul (Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, &c.), namely, that. God 
made all things by His Son. The same plural expression occurs 
after the fall, when God says, “" The man is become as one of us ;” 
and at the confusion of Babel, ‘Let us go down and confound 
their language.”” We cannot conceive the infinite Creator of all 
things thus coupling any finite creature with Himself 

Again, in the old Testament there are various manifestations of 
God, which at one time are spoken of as manifestations of God 
Himself, at another as manifestations of a Messenger or Angel 
sent by God: as though God were at once the Sender and the 
Sent, —the God of Angels and the Angel of God. 

This may be observed of the wrestling of Jacob with the Angel 
(Gen. xxxii. 24). In Genesis it is said Jacob wrestled with a 
man ; but he called the place, “" Peniel, because he had seen God 
face to face "᾿--- (ver. 30); and where the same is referred to by 
Hosea (xii. 3, 4), it is first said, “Ὁ He had power with G'od,” and 
then in the next verse, “‘ He had power over the Angel, and pre- 
vailed.”” 


In Joshua (v. 14), one appears to Joshua, who calls Himself 


40 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. {Arr. 1. 


“the Captain of the Lord’s host.” Yet three verses further (ch, 
vi. 2), when the Captain of the Lord’s host speaks to Joshua, the 
name by which He is called is the Lory (ὦ. 6. Jenovan). From 
this we infer, that He, who came as the Captain of JeHovan’s 
host, was also Himself Jenovaun.} 

In the second chapter of Judges, the Angel of the Lorp appears 
to speak with full authority, as if He were the Lorp Himself. 
“1 made. you go out of Egypt.” “TI said, I will never break My 
covenant with you.” Ver. 1. 

The history of Manoah and the Angel (Judg. xiii. comp. vv. 
20, 21, 22, 23) seems to teach the same thing. 

But not only is One, who is sent by the Lord as His Angel, 
called by the highest name of God, namely, Jenovan; but also 
there is indication of the clearest kind in the old Testament, that 
One, who should be sent on earth by God, as a man, to suffer, and 
to deliver, is also the Fellow of God, and God Himself. Thus, in - 
Jeremiah (xxiii. 6), the Messiah’s name is called “ JeHovan our 
Righteousness.”’ In Isaiah (vii. 14), it is called “ God with us.” 
In Malachi (iii. 1), we are told, “The Lorp whom ye seek, shall 
suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the Cove- 
nant whom ye delight in,’”— language clearly used of the Messiah, 
but as clearly most suitable to God. In Isaiah (ix. 6), the Child, 
who is to be born as a Redeemer, is expressly called “The Mighty 
God.” In Zechariah (xiii. 7), in a prophecy of salvation by the 
Christ, we read, “ Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and 
against the Man that is My Fellow (or Companion, ‘nay ), saith 
the Lord of hosts.” 

I forbear to adduce such passages as those where the Wisdom, 
or the Word of God are spoken of with personal attributes 
(6. g. Prov. viii. ver. 22, 23, 24, 30, 81. Psal. xxxiii. 6. Isai. xlviii. 
16); because we cannot be certain that in these cases personal 
attributes are not ascribed by the figure called Prosopopeia. But 
it is hard to explain how God in creation can use the plural num- 
ber, speaking as to another, with whom He was, as it were, acting 
in concert, — how the same Person can be both Jremovan, and 
sent as JeHovAn’s Angel, Captain, or Messenger, — how the same 
person can be sent on earth as Messiah, and yet be the mighty 
God,—how God can speak of the Man, that is His Fellow;— 
without supposing, that some sort of plurality in the Godhead is 
implied. 


1 Compare Ex. xxiii. 20, 21, where Israelites, seems plainly by ver. 21, to be 
the Angel, whom God sends before the God. 


Src. IL] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. ΑἹ 


I conclude, therefore, that in the old Testament there are distinct 
tntimations of a plurality in the Godhead. 

(2) But next, in the new Testament, there are not only inti- 
mations of a plurality (such as the very use of the names, Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, and their conjunction in numerous pas- 
sages plainly imply), but farther, it is distinctly taught us 

1. That the Farner is Gop, — 2. That the Son is Gop, — 
3. That the Hoty Guosr is Gop. 

1. That we are taught the Farner is Gop, no one can doubt. 
So strong indeed are the expressions concerning the Father as 
God, that, if they stood alone, we should naturally conclude, 
that the Father alone was God, and that, as there is but One 
God, so there was but one Person in the Godhead. Thus our 
Lord says (John viii. 54), “ My Father, of whom ye say that He 
is your God.” Again, addressing the Father, He says, “ This is 
‘Life eternal, to know Thee, the only true God” (John xvii. 8). 
St. Paul speaks (Eph. iv. 6) of “One God and Father of all.” 
And again, “To us there is one God, the Father, and one Lord 
Jesus Christ.”” (1 Cor. viii. 6.) 

2. We learn also from the teaching of the new Testament that 
the Son is God. And this fact we deduce both from reasonable 
inference, and from direct statement. 

Our reasonable inference is of the following kind. 

We often meet with passages in the old Testament, which speak 
plainly of the Most High God, applied as plainly in the new Tes- 
tament to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For example, in Isaiah 
xl. 8, it is said, that “the voice of one crying in the wilderness 
shall prepare the way of JEHovau, and make straight in the desert 
a highway for our God.” But in each one of the Evangelists this 
passage is quoted. The “ Voice” is said to be John the Baptist; 
and He for whom he prepares the way is said to be Christ? Is 
not the natural and necessary inference, that Christ is as much 
“our God” and “ JEHOVAH,” as John was the voice in the wil- 
derness ? 

Again, in Zech. xii. 4, 10, if we compare the one verse with 
the other, we shall see that it is written, “In that day, saith Jz- 
HovAH ... they shall look on Me whom they have pierced.” But 


1 The apparently exclusive appropri- τος, from whom eternally both the Son 
ation of the name of God to God the and Spirit derive the same Life and God- 
Father must be accounted for by the head. See below, pp. 65, 67. 
consideration that the Father is ever 2 Matt. iii. 8; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 4; 
represented to us as the Fountain and Johni. 28. 

Source of Life, the ᾿Αρχῆ, or Πηγὴ ϑεότη- 
6 


42 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. 1. 


St. John (xix. 37) tells us, that this prophecy was concerning the 
piercing of Christ. ‘Therefore we must conclude, that Christ is 
JEHOVAH. 

Once more, in Isaiah vi. the prophet sees the Lord sitting upon 
His throne, even “the King, JeEnovan of hosts” (ver.5). But 
St. John (compare xii. 837-41) says, that the Lorp, whose glory 
Isaiah then saw, was Jesus Christ. 

Another reason why we infer that the Son is God, is that the 
worship due to God is offered to Him, the peculiar attributes of 
God are ascribed to Him, and the power of God is exerted by 
Him. 

(1) He receives worship as God, and is prayed to. 

See Matt. ii. 11; viii. 2; ix. 18; xiv. 83; xv. 25; xx. 20; 
xxviii. 9. Mark vy. 6; ix. 24. Luke xxiii. 42. John ix. 38. 
Acts vii. 59. 2 Cor. viii. 8, 9. 1 Thess. iii. 11. Heb. i. 6. 
Rev. v. 8, 12, 13. 

Whereas saints and angels universally refuse worship offered to 
them, and bid us worship none but God. Acts x. 26; xiv. 14, 15. 
Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9. 

(2) The peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to Him. 

a. He is eternal, existing from everlasting to everlasting. 
Micah v. 2. John i. 1, 3; viii. 58. Col. i. 16, 17. Heb. i. 8, 
10, 11, 12; vii. 3; xiii. 8. Rev. i. comp. vv. 8, 11, 12, 13, 18 
(which comparison will show that the language is all used of Jesus 
Christ) ; xxii. 13. 

It may be added, that several of the above passages show, that 
He is not only eternal, but unchangeable, e. g. Heb. i. 10, 11; 
xiii. 8. 

8. He knows the thoughts, yea, all things. Matt. ix. 4; xii. 
25. Luke vi. 8; ix. 47; xi. 17. John i. 48; xvi. 30; xxi. 17.. 
Col. ii. 3. Rev. ii. 23. 

Those of the above passages which show that Jesus Christ 
knew the thoughts of the heart, should be compared with such 
as the following: Jer. xvii. 10, “1 the Lord search the heart.” 
Acts xv. 8, **God, which knoweth the hearts” (6 καρδιογνώστης 
Θεός), and 1 Kings viii. 39, ““ Thou, even Thou onty knowest the 
hearts of all the children of men.” 


γ. He is everywhere present. Matt. xviii. 20; xxviii. 20. 
John i. 48 ; iii. 18. 


1 The objections to Christ’s omni- Waterland, Moyer’s Lecture, Serm. v1t., 
science, taken from John viii, 28; Rev. Works, 1. p. 160. See the latter pas- 
i. 1; Mark xiii. 82; are answered by sage considered below, under Art. rv. 


Sze. IL] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 43 


The last passage especially shows that, whilst He was on earth, 
He was still in Heaven. 

5. He is self-existent, like the Father, having derived from 
the Father the same eternal nature with Himself. John v. 26. 
Compare John xi. 25; xiv. 6. See also John i. 4; x. 30; xiv. 10. 
Phil. ii. 6.4 

(3) The power of God is exerted by Him. 


a. He is Lord of the Sabbath, which God ordained, and none 


but God can change. Comp. Gen. ii. 2, 8, with Mark ii. 28. 
Luke vi. 5. 


8. He sends His Angels, as God. Matt. xii, 41. Rev. i. 1; ; 


xxii. 6. 

y. He has power to forgive sins as God. Matt. ix. 2-6. 
Mark ii. 5, 7, 10. Luke v. 20-24; vii. 48. 

Whereas, when forgiveness is merely ministerial or ecclesiasti- 
cal, the power is conferred by Him, and exercised in His name. 
Comp. John xx. 23 with 2 Cor. ii. 10. 

8. He shall judge the world. Job xix. 25, Matt. xiii. 41; 
xvi. 27; xxv. 81. John v. 22, 25. Acts x.42. 2 Cor. v. 10. 

e. He created and preserves all things? John i. 3, 10. Eph. 
iii. 9. Col. i. 16. Heb. i. 2, 8, 10, 11, 12. 

With these passages compare Isaiah xliv. 24, “Thus saith the 
Lorp (ὦ. 6. JEHovan), I am the Lorp that maketh all things; 
that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad 
the earth by Mysexr.” 

¢ He has all power in Heaven and earth. Matt. xxviii. 18. 
Mark i. 27. John iii. 31, 35; v.19, 21; xvi. 15. Acts x. 86. 
Rom. xiv. 9. Eph. i. 20-23. Phil. ii. 10; iii. 21. Heb. vii. 
25. 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22. Rev. i. 5, 8. 


Thus far, then, we have seen, that passages in the old Testa- 
ment, spoken of God, are in the new Testament applied to Christ, 
the Son of God: that the worship due to God is offered to the 
Son: that the peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to the Son: 


that the power of God is exerted by the Son. If we had nothing - 


more than this, surely our natural and necessary inference must be, 
that the Son is God. 
But we are not left to the inference of our reason only on this 


1 On Phil. τ 6, see Pearson, On the p. 118; Waterland, Works (Oxf. 1823), 
Creed, fol. p. 121. 11. 2d and 84 Sermons at Lady Moyer’s 
2 On the proof of Christ’s proper Deity Lecture. 
from creation, see Pearson, On the Creed, 


44 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. L 


momentous subject. We have also direct statement, and that many 
times repeated, that Christ, the Son of God, is God. 

And here we may recur, for a moment, to what was said con- 
cerning intimations of a plurality in the Godhead in the old Tes- 
tament. Some of the passages there referred to, when seen in the 
light cast upon them by the new Testament, become direct asser- 
tions of the Godhead of Christ. 

The prophecy in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, that a Virgin 
should bear a Son, whose name should be called Immanuel, i. e. 
God with us, is, in the first chapter of St. Matthew, distinctly 
interpreted of the birth of Jesus Christ. Therefore St. Matthew 
distinctly declares to us, that Jesus Christ is Emmanuel, God 
with us. Again, in the ninth chapter of Isaiah, which is a 
continuation of the prophecy in the seventh chapter, the child 
that was to be born is called “* Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty 
God, the Everlasting Father.” This prophecy, too, is by St. Mat- 
thew expressly interpreted of the Lord Jesus. (See Matt. iv. 16, 
which compare with Isai. ix. 1, 2.) We have then the express 
assurance of the Evangelist, that Jesus Christ was called in the 
old Testament, Immanuel, and the Mighty God. 

We might add to these examples the language of Zechariah 
(xiii. 7), where the Lord’s “Shepherd” is called his “ Fellow ;” 
and that of Jeremiah (xxiii. 6), where the “ Branch,” that should 
be raised to David, is called “ JEHovan our Righteousness ;”’! be- 
cause both these passages are unquestionable prophecies of Christ, 
though not so distinctly referred to by the Evangelists. 

The first chapter of St. John begins with a declaration of the 
Divinity of the Son of God. From whatever source St. John 
derived the use of the term ‘**the Word of God;” whether he 
used language already familiar to the Jews, or, as is perhaps more 
probable, adopted the phrase of Platonizing heretics ;? it is quite 
plain, that by the ““ Word” he means the Son of God, who was 
incarnate in Jesus Christ. That is proved by Rev. xix. 13, where 
it is said of Jesus Christ that “‘His name is called the Word of 
God;” and again, by the 14th verse of the first chapter of St. 
John’s Gospel, where we read, “The Word was made flesh and 
dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the 
Only-begotten of the Father.” Of this Word of God then, who 
was the Only-begotten of the Father, and, when made flesh, was 
called Jesus Christ, we are told (John i. 1), “In the beginning 


1 On this passage see Pearson, On the Creed, fol. p. 148, note. 
2 Seo Sect. 1. Historical View. 


Sec. Π.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 45 


was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God.” Language cannot more strongly express the Deity of the 
Son of God, the Word of God. Yet, lest mistake should occur, 
the Evangelist adds a sentence which at once declares that the 
Word was uncreated, and was Himself the Creator of all things, 
exercising that, the highest act of Almighty power. ‘ All things | 
were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that 
was made.” If no created thing was made but by Him; then 
was He Himself uncreated, and so He must be the eternal, uncre- 
ated Maker of the universe. 

In the eighth chapter of the same Gospel, we find our Lord 
taking to Himself one of the most special names of God. God 
had first revealed Himself to Moses by the name “I am.” Here, 
then, Christ having-declared Himself the Son of God, having 
assured the Jews that Abraham had seen His day and rejoiced; 
when they doubted the possibility of His having seen Abraham, 
He adds, “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I 
am.” Had He merely spoken of His preéxistence, the past tense 
would have seemed more natural. But He uses that tense which 
expresses the existence of none but God,—an unchanging present, 
which has no future nor past,—and so adopts, as His own, the 
name of the self-existent Jenovan. That the Jews so understood 
Him is apparent from the fact, that, though they bore with Him 
whilst He called Himself God’s Son, as soon as he had uttered the 
words ‘* Before Abraham was, I am,” they took up stones to cast 
at Him. 

Again, (John xx. 28,) when Thomas is convinced of Christ’s 
resurrection, he is therewith, though not till then, convinced of 
Christ’s Divinity ; for he immediately “said unto Him, My Lord 
and My God.” } 

Another important passage is that in the ninth chapter of Ro- 
mans, ver. 5; where St. Paul, speaking of the Jews, says that of 
them, ‘‘ as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God, 
blessed forever.” In this verse there is, as it were, proof upon 
proof, that Christ is God. First, the expression “as concerning 
the flesh,” indicates that, according to something higher than the 
flesh, He had His Being elsewhere. Next He is said to be ἐπὲ πάν- 
τῶν, “over all;” as John the Baptist said of Him (John iii. 31), 
“He that cometh from above is above all.” The very same epi 


1 The objections which have been On the Creed, p. 181; and Middleton, On 
made to the plain sense of this passage the Article, in loc. 
may be seen fully replied to, Pearson, 


OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. }. 


46 
thet (ἐπὶ πάντων) is applied, Eph. iv. 6, to God the Father; nor 
can we conceive it to be of less significance than that similar title 
of God (ἡ Ὧν, ὕψιστος) “the Most High.” Next comes the name 
(Θεός) God, which is in every manuscript and every version. 
Lastly, the whole is concluded by the words “ Blessed forever: ” 
a phrase which is a translation, or paraphrase of a well-known 
Jewish form used only in speaking of the Almighty: (wit77 
NIT NID). 

Again, in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, 
ver. 9, St. Paul says of Christ, that “in Him dwelt all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily.” The Gnostics made a fulness (pleroma) 
of numerous AZons, or emanations from God, and one of these 
emanations they believed to dwell in Jesus. The Apostle says, 
however, that it was no single Alon, no mere emanation from 
God: but that the whole Pleroma, the fulness of God, dwelt in 
Him bodily.” 

The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, besides 
ascribing Creation and Providence to the Son of God, besides 
saying that all the Angels should worship Him, distinctly applies 
to Him the name of God. It is thus the Apostle quotes the 
Psalms: “Τὸ the Son He saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever 
and ever.” And again, “ Thou, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid 
the foundation of the earth.” 

Let us next take the important passage in the Epistle to the 
Philippians (ii. 5-9). The Apostle exhorts the Philippians to 
humility by the example of the incarnate Son of God. “ Let this 
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the 
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but 
made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a 
servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in 
fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross.” There are two ways in which 
this passage, or at least one phrase of it (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ipyjcaro), 
may be translated: one, as in our version; the other (as Origen, 
Novatian, and.many after them have interpreted it), “did not 


1 All MSS. all VSS. have the verse 
entire. All the Fathers have it, except 
that in Cyprian, Hilary, and Leo it is 
referred to without Θεός, Such an ex- 
ception will be very far from invalidat- 
ing the reading; but Erasmus observes 
that without Θεός, the verse would still 

rove the Divinity. See the passa 
lly considered, Pearson, p. 182; Wa. 


terland, rr. p. 183 ; Middleton, On the Ar- 
ticle, in loc. ; Magee, On Atonement, 111. p. 
91. The Arian interpretation, which 
would make the latter part of the verse a 
doxology to the Father, is considered and 
refuted very fully by Bp. Middleton. See 
also Tholuck and Alford on this Lange 
*See Whitby on this passage. 
Notes on the Colossians are very good. 


Sec IP] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 47 
pique Himself on this His dignity,” or, “did not covet and ear- 
nestly desire to be so honoured.” ! It does not appear that one of 
these renderings is more calculated to weaken the force of the 
passage than the other. Both of them are intelligible, if we admit 
that St. Paul is speaking of Christ as God: both unintelligible on 
every other hypothesis. 

The Arians indeed interpret the “being in the form of God,” 
not as though it meant being in the “nature of God,” but as 
though it were intended to signify, that Christ, before His incar- 
nation, acted under the old Testament as God’s Angel and 
Messenger, represented and personated God; and so might be said 
to be in the form of God. They would therefore explain it, ‘ that 
Christ, having been sent as God’s messenger, and permitted to 
personate and represent God, yet did not arrogate to Himself 
to be equal with God.” But it must be observed, that, if this 
were the right sense of the passage, then also the phrase “ taking 
the form of a servant” should mean, not the becoming really man, 
but merely personating or appearing in the semblance of a man; 
which sense of the passage might be correct, if the writer had 
been a Gnostic; not, as it was St. Paul. But as the “taking 
on Him the form of a servant”? must mean that He was truly 
man; so the “being in the form of God” must mean that He 
was truly God. It must be observed again, that, as the Apostle 
distinctly tells us that Christ took the form of a servant by being 
made in the likeness of men, it is therefore quite plain that, 


1 Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, οὐχ asaman, He humbled Himself. How? 


. likeness of men. 


ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ica Θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, μορφὴν δούλου λαβὼν, ἐν 
ὁμοιώματι ἀνϑρώπων γενόμενος, καὶ σχῆ- 
uate εὑρεϑεὶς ὡς ἄνϑρῥωπος, ἐταπείνωσεν 
ἑαυτὸν, γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι ϑανάτου, 
ϑανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. ‘* Who, being in the 
form of God, thought it not robbery to 
be equal with God (or, did not parade, 
covet, or pique Himself on the being equal 
with God); but emptied Himself (of his 
glory) by taking the form of a servant, 
{and that) by being made in the likeness 
of men; and being found in fashion as a 
man, He humbled Himself by becoming 
obedient unto death, even the death of 
the cross.” The participles express the 
manner in which the actions of the verbs 
were effected. He, being in the form of 
God, emptied Himself of His divine glory. 
How? Why, by taking the form of a 
servant. And how did He take the form 
of a servant? By being made in the 
And then, being no 
longer in the glory of God, but in fashion 


By becoming obedient unto death. 

Hence it appears, that, as He humbled 
Himself by becoming obedient to death, 
so He emptied Himself by taking the 
form of a servant, and He took the form 
of a servant by being made man. The 
taking the form of a servant, then, was 
the becoming man, the assuming human 
nature: “the form of a servant” was 
the nature of man. It follows that the 
“form of God” was the nature of God. 

It must be admitted that οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν 
ἡγήσατο is an unusual expression; but to 
the interpretation ‘did not make a parade 
of, or pique Himself on the being equal 
with God,” the few parallel expressions 
bye are to be found seem most favour- 
able. 

On the whole passage see Grotius, 
Hammond, Whitby, Macknight, Rosen- 
miiller, Middleton, in loc., Suicer, s. v. 
ἁρπαγμός ; Pearson, On the Creed, p. 122, 
fol. ; Waterland, 11. Serm. v. p. 89. 


48 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. L 


before He was made in the likeness of men, He was not in the 
form of a servant. But who of all created beings is not in the 
form of a servant? Who, but the uncreated God, is not a servant 
of God? If therefore Christ was, before His incarnation, not a 
servant, nor in the form of a servant, then, before His incar- 
nation, He must have been God. 

The passage then requires us to interpret it as follows: “‘ Take, 
for your example of humility, Jesus Christ. He, being in the 
form and nature of God, thought it not robbery to be (or, piqued 
not Himself on being) equal with God; but emptied Himself of 
His Divine glory, inasmuch, as He, being Lord of all, yet assumed 
the form of a servant, by being made in likeness of men; and 
when He was thus found in fashion no longer as God, but as man, 
He humbled Himself yet further, by becoming obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross.” 

In the famous passage in 1 Tim. iii. 16, we read, “God was 
manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached 
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into 
glory.” It is indeed true that there are three readings of the 
first word, which is in our version God. Yet whichever reading 
may be the true, the whole drift of the passage and its context 
clearly express the Deity of Him of whom the Apostle writes, 
that is of Jesus Christ. 

There is another passage, in Acts xx. 28, which I couple with 
the last, because here too the reading is in doubt. St. Paul ex- 
horts the elders of Ephesus “to feed the Church of God, which 
He hath purchased with His own blood.”’? So strongly does this 


Ri The state of the question is nearly 
this : — 

ὅς is the reading of C*F.G. 17. 78. 
181. ——6 of D*. —— Θεός of D*** J. K. 
and of nearly all cursive MSS. 

B. E. H. are defective in this place, 
and supply no evidence at all. 

The reading of A has been very much 


et the question concerning the reading 
0 


The reading of VSS. is in favour of a 
relative, the Latin reading quod, the other 
ὅς, except the Arabic (Polygl.) and 
Slavonic, which have Θεός. 

The Latin fathers followed the Vulgate 
in reading quod, except Hieron. In Esai, 
liii. 2, who reads ὅς. 


disputed. At present A reads Θεός, but 
the lines which distinguish from OC 
are ina newer and coarser ink than the 
original. The MS: is greatly defaced in 
this passage ; and it is now extremely dif- 
ficult to decide what the reading original- 
ly was. There is no trace now of a line 
either in or over the O written in the orig- 
inal ink ; and from close inspection I am 
satisfied, that the tongue of the € in the 
page on the other side of the leaf might 
ve been seen through, and have a 

like the stroke of the middle of 0. 

But it is difficult to say how far this set- 


Of the Greek fathers, some are doubt- 
ful. Ignat. Ad Eph. 19, Chrysost., 
Theodoret, Damase.,icum., Theophyl., 
read Θεός. Cyril. Alex., Theodor. ny A 
suest., Epiphan., Gelas. (Cyzic.), read ὅς. 

2 Θεοῦ is the reading of Cod. Vat. and 
seventeen other MSS., two of the Pe- 
shito, Vulg., A&thiop., Athanasius, Ter- 
tullian, ἄς. Κυρίου is the reading of Cod. 
Alex., Bezw, and fourteen others ; Copt., 
Sahid., Armen., Eusebius, &c. The fa- 
thers’ authority is greatly for the first. 
The three readings Θεοῦ, Κυρίου, and Kv- 


Src. IL] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 49 


. speak, and so plainly assert the Deity of Christ, that the fathers, 
as early as Ignatius, who was a contemporary of the Apostles, con- 
sidered themselves sanctioned by these words to use the remark- 
able expressions, “the Blood of God,” and “ the passion of God.”’+ 

St. Peter (2 Pet. i. 1) speaks of “our God and Saviour Jesus 
Christ ;” St. Jude, of ““ our only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus 
Christ,” Jude 4. Compare Eph. v. 5; 2 Thess. i. 12; Tit. ii. 18.? 

Lastly, St. John (1 John v. 20) distinctly calls Jesus Christ 
“the true God.” ‘We are in Him that is true, even in His Son 
Jesus Christ. This (otros) is the true God, and eternal life.” The 
pronoun “ this” (οὗτος), in all propriety of speech, should refer to 
the last antecedent, Jesus Christ. Hence, literally and grammati- 
cally, the passage teaches, that Christ is the true God. » But also 
the context shows that it is of Him, and not of the Father, that 
St. John makes this statement. Our Lord is called by Himself, 
and by His Apostle St. John, “the Life,” “the Life of men.” 
Throughout the chapter, the Apostle has been urging, that eternal 
life is in the Son of God. Hence, when he has said all he has 
to say on the subject, he concludes with once more assuring us, 
that Jesus Christ is both “the true God and eternal Life.” So 
cogent has this argument appeared, that some Arians have 
admitted that eternal life was meant of the Son, whilst the true 
God was meant of the Father. But it can never be denied that 
οὗτος, this, is equally the subject of both the predicates, true God, 
and eternal life. Therefore, if it be said, that Christ is eternal life, 
it is equally said, Christ is the true God. Lastly, there is no 
instance of the contrary interpretation in all antiquity, the objec- 
tions being all modern, and of no weight in themselves.? 

We may now then fairly conclude, that Scripture furnishes us, 
both by reasonable inference and by direct statement, with proof 
that the Son is Gop. 

3. In the third place we learn also from Scripture that the 
Hoty Guost is Gop. 

Having found from the Scriptures that the Father is God, and 
that the Son is God, we shall need the less proof that He whose 
piov καὶ Θεοῦ, are nearly equally supported 
by MSS. The VSS. in number are near- 


ly equal for Θεοῦ and Κυρίου ; those of 
greater authority favour Θεοῦ. 


ἀναζωπυρῆσαντες ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ. This pas- 
sage is in Syriac. 
* This is, of course, assuming Mr. 


The phrase ᾿Εκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ occurs 
eleven times in St. Paul’s writings; 
Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Κυρίου, never. See also Bp. 
Middleton in loc.; Burton’s Testimonies 
of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 15. 

1Ignat. Ad Ephes.1. μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ, 

7 


Granville Sharp’s Canon on the Article 
to be established. See Middleton, pt. 1. 
ch. 111. Sect. 1v. ὃ 2; and upon the five 
passages quoted and referred to in the 
text ; also Waterland, 11. p. 128. 

% See Waterland, 11. p. 123 


50 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Arn L 


name is constantly joined with them is also God. Indeed, but few 
will deny the Divinity, though they may doubt the Personality of 
the Holy Ghost. Yet, since in old times Arians, Macedonians, 
and others appear to have held the strange notion that the Holy 
Spirit was a creature, it may be well to show briefly that Scrip- 
ture does speak of Him as God. 

As is the case as regards the Son, so to the Spirit are ascribed 
the power and the attributes of God. 

(1) He is the great Worker of Miracles. Matt. i. 20; xii 
28. Luke iv. 1,14. Acts ii. 4; x. 45. Rom. xv. 19. 1 Cor. 
xii. 4, 8. Heb. ii. 4. 

(2) He is the Inspirer of Prophets, and can teach all things. 
Mark xii: 36; xiii. 11. Luke i. 15-41; xii. 12. John xiv. 26; 
xvi. 18. Acts i. 83 viii. 29; x. 19, 20; xiii. 2; xxviii. 25. 1 Cor. 
ii, 13; xii. 11. Eph. 1. 5. Heb. iii. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 11, 12. 
2 Pet. i. 21. 

(83) He dwells in temples as God. 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19. 

(4) He is the Source of all holiness. John iii. 5. Rom. 
i. 4, 5; viii. 9, 14. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Gal. v. 16, ἄς. Compare 
Matt. xix. 17. 

(5) He is Omnipresent and Omniscient. Ps. cxxxix. 7. 1 
Cor. ii. 10. 

(6) He is represented as the Creator. Gen. i. 2. Job xxvi. 
18; xxxiii. 4. Ps. civ. 30, with which compare Is. xliv. 24. 
Mal. ii. 10. 

(Τὴ He is everlasting. Heb. ix. 14. 

(8) Sin against Him is so great, that, though blasphemy of 
all other kinds is pardonable, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is 
unpardonable. Matt. xii. 81. Mark iii. 29. Luke xii. 10. 

Thus are attributes and powers ascribed to the Holy Ghost 
which can only be ascribed ‘to God. 


But, moreover, He is expressly called God. 

In 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3, we read, 

“The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, 
And His Word was in my tongue, 
The God of Israel said, 
The Rock of Israel spake to me.” 

According to the usage of Hebrew poetry, it is unquestionable 
that “the Spirit of the Lord” in the first verse is the same as 
“the God of Israel” in the third. 

In Matt. xii. 28, our Lord says, “If I with the Spirit of God 


Src. 11.} OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 51 


cast out devils.” The parallel passage, Luke xi. 20, has, “If I 
with the finger of God cast out devils;”’ where the word “ fin- 
- ger,” like “hand” in the old Testament, simply signifies by or 
by means of So that here God and the Spirit of God are sy- 
nonymous. 

In Acts xxviii. 25, St. Paul quotes a passage thus, ** Well spake 
the Holy Ghost by the prophet Esaias.” The passage is from 
Isaiah vi. 9: which, if we refer to it in Isaiah, we shall find to 
have been unquestionably spoken by (tod. 

In 1 Cor. iii. 16, we read, “ Ye are the temple of God.” In 
1 Cor. vi. 19, the parallel passage, we find, ‘* Your body is the 
temple of the Holy Ghost.” 

In Exod. xxxiv., it is related that, when Moses had gone up to 

talk with the Thoed on Mount Sinai, the skin of his face shone so 
brightly, that, when he had spoken to the people, he put a veil 
over his face, so that they were not able to look upon hims 
but, ‘‘when he went in before the Lord,” (ὦ. 6. JeHovan,) “10 
speak with Him, he took the veil off until he came out,” ver. 34. 
Now in 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17, St. Paul alludes to this history, and 
plainly referring to this very verse, he says, When the heart of 
the Israelites ‘shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken 
away.” He then adds, “ Now the Lord” (i. ὁ. the Lord, before 
whom Moses stood, and to whom the Israelites were to turn, 7. 6. 
JEHOVAH) “is that Spirit.’ 
_ In Acts v. 3, 4, when Ananias had denied the truth before the 
Apostles, Peter said to Ananias, ‘‘ Why hath Satan filled thine 
heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” And immediately after he adds, 
Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” Plainly, eck 
the Holy Ghost is God. 

Such are some of the passages of Scripture from which we ay 
infallibly conclude, that, 

As the FatHer is Gop,— And the seu is Gop, —So thie 
Hoty Guost is Gop. 

III. Having shown that God is One, and yet, that, as regards 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is said of each that 
He is God; I propose next to show that these two truths are not 
direct contradictions to each other, as though it were said in one 
place, “there is One God,” and in another, “there are three 
Gods;” for it appears from Scripture that the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost are but one and the same God. 

1. It appears from Scripture, that the Father is One with the 


1 Thus π WE “ By the hand. of Moses,” means merely “ by Moses.” 


δῶ OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Arr. L 


Son. This is expressly declared by our Lord (John x. 30), “I 
and My Father are One.” Again, He addresses the Father as 
being One with Him; and prays that His Church may be one 
Church in God, as He and His Father are One: “that they all 
may be One, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they 
also may be one in us.” Again, that “they may be one, even as 
we are one” (John xvii. 21, 22). Therefore it is, that the Lord 
Jesus says of Himself, ‘‘ He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent 
Me,” and in like manner He reproves His Apostle for asking to 
be shown the Father, saying, “* Have I been so long time with you, 
and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me, 
hath seen the Father: and how sayest thou then, Shew us the 
Father Ὁ} 

2. That the Spirit of God is one with God the Father is shown 
by St. Paul, who compares the Spirit of God in God, to the spirit 
of man in man (1 Cor. ii. 10, 11): “ What man knoweth the 
things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even 
so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” 

The passage in 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3, quoted above, where “ the 
Spirit of God spake by me” is synonymous with ‘the God of 
Israel said,” is to the same effect. 

8. That the Son and the Spirit are One may appear from the 
fact that St. John says (xii. 37, 41), that the Lord, whose glory 
Isaiah saw in the vision recorded in the sixth chapter, was the Son, 
Jesus Christ; but St. Paul says (Acts xxviii. 25), that the Lord, 
who then spoke to Isaiah, was the Holy Ghost. 

Again (in Matt. xi. 27) we read, “ No one knoweth the Father, 
but the Son.’”? Whereas, in 1 Cor. ii. 11, we are told that ‘ the 
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” 

4. Accordingly we find, that what the Father does, that the Son 
does, and that the Holy Ghost does; where the Father is, there 
the Son is, and there the Holy Ghost is, e.g. 

The Father made the world. Heb. i. 2. 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
The Son made the world. John i. 8. Col. i. 16. Heb. i. 2. 
The Spirit made the world. Job xxvi. 13; xxxiii. 4. 

Again, | 

The Father quickeneth. John v. 21. 
The Son quickeneth whom he will. John v. 21. 
It is the Spirit that quickeneth. John vi. 63. 

Again, 

God the Father spake by the prophets. Heb. i, 1. 
1 John xiv. 9; see also Matt. x. 40; Mark ix, 87. 


Sec. ΠῚ OF THE HOLY TRINITY. «BB 


God the Son spake by the prophets. 2 Cor. xii. 3. 
Pet. 7. 11. 
God the Holy Ghost spake by the prophets. Mark xiii. 
11.. 2 Pet.i. 21. 
Again, sanctification is ascribed 
To the Father. Jude 1. 
To the Son. Heb. ii. 11. 
To the Holy Ghost. Rom. xv. 16.1 
Ordination is ascribed 
To the Father. 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. 
To the Son. 1 Tim. i. 12. 
To the Holy Ghost. Acts xx. 28. 
Indwelling and presence in every Christian are ascribed 
To the Father. John xiv. 23. 1 Cor. xiv. 25. 
To the Son. John xiv. 28. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 
To the Holy Ghost. John xiv. 17. 

From these considerations, and others like them, we naturally 
conclude, that, though the Father is God, the Son is God, and the 
Holy Ghost is God, yet are they not three different Gods, but one 
and the same God. 

Those, indeed, who take the Arian view of the Scriptures, 
maintain that there is but one God, even the Father; but they 
add, that the Son also is God, yet not the same God, but an 
inferior God to the Father, and so not of the same nature and 
substance with the Father. This is both self-contradictory and 
contradictory to Holy Scripture. First, it is self-contradictory, for 
it teaches that there is but one God, and yet that there are two 
Gods. Secondly, it is contradictory to Scripture ; for it is opposed 
to the passages, which, as we have just seen, prove the Son to be 
one with the Father; and it is opposed most distinctly to such 
passages as teach that there is no God but the One Supreme 
Creator of the Universe. For example, we read, Isai. xliv. 8, ‘ Is 
there a God beside Me? Yea, there is no God, I know not any ;” 
and, Isai. xlv. 5, “1 am the Lord, there is none else; there is no 
God beside me.” (So Deut. iv. 35, 39; xxxii. 89. 2 Sam. xxii. 
32.) Now, if the Arian hypothesis be true, there is another God, 
besides God the Father, even His Son Jesus Christ, who is not 
only another, but an inferior God to the Father. The only way, 
then, in which we can reconcile the two apparently contradictory 
truths, (1) that God is one, and (2) that the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost are each said to be God, is by admitting, as the 

1 See Jones’s Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. 


54 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. 1. 


Scriptures also teach us, that ‘they are not three Gods, but One 
God.” ! 

« Thus far, then, we have proved, —I. The Unity of the Godhead, 
—II. That the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy 
Ghost is God, —III. That these two truths are not direct contra- 
dictions to each other; for that the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost are but One God, not three Gods. 

But if this were all that we could learn from Scripture, we 
might naturally conclude that the Sabellian was the correct hy- 
pothesis, and that the names of Father, Son, and Spirit were the 
names but of different modes, operations, or characters of the Deity : 
so that, perhaps, God might be called Father, when viewed as Crea- 
tor and Governor; Son, when viewed as Redeemer and Saviour ; 
Spirit, when considered as Sanctifier and Teacher. Or perhaps 
we might suppose, that the Son and the Spirit were mere attributes 
of, or influences from God; as, for instance, the Son, the Logos, 
might be esteemed but as the Reason of God; the Spirit, as that 
Divine Influence by which He teaches the minds, and sanctifies 
the hearts of His servants. 


IV. It is therefore necessary to show that there is plain evi- 
dence from Scripture that the Father is not the Son, and that 
neither of them is the Holy Ghost; but that they are plainly dis- 
tinguished from one another, and distinguished, too, as Personal 
Agents, not merely as modes, operations, or attributes. 

That there is some kind of distinction, must appear from the 
fact that the three, Father, Son, and Spirit, are so frequently men- 
tioned together in the same sentence; especially in the forms of 
blessing and of baptism. (2 Cor. xiii. 14. Matt. xxviii, 19.) This 
alone might be sufficient to prove that these three sacred names 
were not names merely of different characters assumed by God at 
various times; for it seems scarcely reasonable to suppose that the 
Apostles prayed for blessing from three characters assumed by God, 
instead of praying for blessing from the One God to whom all such 
characters belonged; nor yet can we well believe that they should 
invoke blessing from the attributes of God, or baptize converts 
into a form of faith not in God alone, but in’ God, His attributes, 
and His influences. 

But, in order to establish more clearly the fact that the Father, 


ΠΑ It may be observed, that, if this is Son, and the Holy Ghost be but one God, 
true, then the doctrine of the Aomo-ousion, the Son and the Spirit must be of one 
the consubstantiality of the Son and the nature and substance with the Father. 
Spirit is proved; for if the Father, the 


Sec. IL] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 55 


the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinguished as personal Agents, 
it will be necessary to bring passages from Scripture, in which 
they are represented to us as acting personal parts, and even in 
which all three are represented as acting three distinct parts. 

1. The Father and the Son act distinct personal parts, and 
are therefore distinct Personal Agents. 

(1) The Father sends the Son; whereas no one can ‘be said 
to send himself. John v. 36, 37; vi. 88, 39. Acts iii. 20. Gal. iv. 4. 
1 John iv. 9, &e. 

(2) The Son leaves the Father and returns to Him again. 
John viii. 42; ix. 4; xii. 49; xvi. 5, 28; xvii. ὃ. 1 John iv. 14. 

(3) The Son offers Himself to the Father. Heb. ix. 14. 

(4) The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. 
John iii. 85; v. 20; xiv. 81; xv. 9; xvii. 24, 26. 

(5) The Son is said to make intercession with the Father. 
Heb. vii. 25. 1 John ii. 1. Comp. Heb. ix. 24. 

(6) The Son in His human nature prays to the Father. 
Luke xxii. 42; xxiii. 84. John xvii. 

(7) The Father hears and speaks to the Son. John xi. 42. 
Heb. v. 7. Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5. Luke ix. 35. John xii. 28. 
.2. The Spirit acts distinct parts from either the Father or the 
Son. 

(1) The Father and the Son both send the Spirit. John xiv. 
16, 26; xv. 26; xx. 22. Acts ii, 33. Gal. iv. 6. 

(2) The Spirit makes intercession with the Father, whereas 
no one can intercede with Himself. Rom. viii. 26. 

(8) The Son offers Himself to the Father through the Eternal 
Spirit. Heb. ix. 14. 

(4) Christ tells His disciples, that He must go away frum 
them, and that then the Holy Spirit should come in His place; 
that He would go to the Father; and from the Father send the 
Comforter. John xiv. 16, 26; xvi. 7. 

(5) Christ says, that the Holy Spirit should not speak of 
Himself, but should receive of Christ’s, and show to the Church. 
John xvi. 13, 14, 15. 

3. We not only have the names of the Father, the Son, and 
the Spirit joined in blessing, and in the form of baptism, but we 
are told of a scene ἴῃ vohich they all three acted jointly, yet 
separate parts. At the baptism of Christ, the Son was in the 
Man Christ Jesus baptized; the Spirit in the shape of a dove 
descended on Him; the Father, out of Heaven, pronounced Him 
His beloved Son. 


56 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Arr. L 


All these facts, put together, sufficiently demonstrate that there 
is a distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
and that a distinction of Personal Agents. Yet still, that we may 
leave no room-for objection, it may, perhaps, appear necessary to 
consider separately, and more at length, the Personality (i) of the 
Son, (ii) of the Spirit. 

(i) The general tone of Scripture so clearly indicates that 
God the Son is a Person, that, at first, it might appear that the 
Arian hypothesis, which makes the Son an inferior God to the 
Father, was the only one which could be at all maintained on 
Scriptural grounds; except, of course, the Catholic doctrine of 
the Trinity. But as the Sabellian hypothesis is not without its 
advocates and its angumsentay it deserves and requires to be con- 
sidered. 

The view which Sabellianism takes of the Son of God, is, as 
has been said before, twofold. Some Sabellians considered God 
the Son as altogether the same as God the Father, and as having 
no proper distinction from Him, These were, in the early ages, 
called Patripassians. Others, again, looked on God the Son as 
but an Hmanation from the Father, not as a Person distinct, in 
any sense, from Him. These have been called Emanative Sabel- 
lians. Both forms have found advocates in some degree in later 
times. Patripassianism has been virtually held by some divines, 
who, in the main orthodox, have endeavoured too boldly to make 
the doctrine of the Trinity square exactly with human reason and 
philosophy. The emanative theory has been adopted, more or less, 
by some, who are in fact Socinians, to elude the force or explain 
the difficulty of such passages as John i. 1. 

Now, against both these hypotheses, the marked distinction 
which our Lord makes between Himself and the Father must be 
carefully noted. For example (John viii. 17, 18) : “It is written 
in your Law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one 
that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth 
witness of Me.” Here is a distinct appeal to two distinct wit- 
nesses. As the Jewish Law required the evidence of two men; so 
here the Lord Jests appeals to. the evidence first of Himself, 
secondly of His Father, Would this be much unlike equivocation, 
if the Father and the Son had no personal distinction? Again 
(John v. 17), our Lord says: ‘* My Father worketh hitherto, and 
I work.” And when the Jews accused Him of blasphemy, for 
making God His Father, and so elaiming equality with God, He 
does not deny the charge of making Himself equal with God, but 


Sxe. I1.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 57 


still goes on to declare to them, that, notwithstanding His unity of 
nature with the Father, He, the Son, had a personal subordination 
to Him. “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He 
seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also 
doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and 
showeth Him all things that Himself doeth.” In this passage 
surely, where the Son claims, as the Jews rightly interpreted Him, 
to be the true Son of God, and so equal with God, He yet plainly 
sets forth the doctrine, that in His Person, though not in His 
Nature, He was subordinate to the Father, receiving of the Father, 
and doing the same things as the Father doeth. And so He goes 
on, ‘* As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even 
so the Son quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no 
man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.” Again, “As 
the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to 
have life in Himself :” that is, “‘ the Father,” unlike any creature, 
is self-existent, having “life in Himself,” and so He hath given to 
the Son to be self-existent, and to “παν life in Himself,”’— 
(language clearly spoken of the eternal Son, not merely of the 
Man Christ Jesus,)—‘ And hath given Him authority to execute 
judgment also; because He is the Son of Man,” ὁ. 6. because He 
is not only Son of God, but Son of man also, incarnate, and so 
the fitter agent to execute the wrath, as well as to show the mercy 
of God. But again, our Lord goes on, “1 can of Mine own Self 
do nothing: as I hear I judge: and My judgment is just: because 
I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father, which hath 
sent Me.’ Again, in the forty-third verse, ‘I am come in My 
Father’s name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in 
his own name, him ye will receive.” 

The whole of this passage is one in which our Lord clearly 
spoke of Himself in His Divine nature, and of His relation to His 
Father in that nature, which He had in common with Him; yet no 
language can more expressly mark a distinction of personal action, 
and personal attribute. 

Again, some of the passages which seem to have as their 
special object to set forth the glory of the Divine Being of the 
Son, are so worded as specially to show His distinction of Person 
from the Father. Thus in Coloss. i. 15, 16, where creation and 
providence are ascribed to Him in terms of peculiar grandeur, 
He is called “‘ the Image of the Invisible God, the First Born of,”’ 
or ““ Begotten before, every creature.’ Here He is both repre- 


1 See John v. 17-80. 
8 


58 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. 1 


sented as the Image of the Father, and as having before all crea- 
tion been begotten as His Son; both expressions markedly denoting 
personal difference. 

The same thing is even more remarkable in the beginning of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is plain, from the language of the 
whole of the first chapter, that the subject is the Divine nature of 
the Son. Yet nothing can be more clear than the distinction 
which is made between the Father and the Son. First of all, God 
_ is said to have spoken in old times by the prophets, but in the 
latter days by His Son, “whom he hath appointed heir of all 
things, by whom also He made ,the worlds. Who being the 
brightness (the shining forth) of His glory, and the express Image 
of His Person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, 
when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right 
Hand of the Majesty on High” (vv. 1, 2, 3). Now here God is 
said to have spoken by His Son, as He did by the prophets; He 
is said to have appointed Him heir of all things; (both marking 
distinctions of Person); then the Son is said to be “the express 
Image of the Person” of the Father. It may be a question, what 
is meant by the word ὑπόστασις, translated Person ; but there can 
be no question that the word χαρακτήρ, translated express Image, 
means that the ὑπόστασις of the Son answers to that of the Father, 
as the impression on wax answers to the seal which made the impres- 
sion. Whether then ὑπόστασις means ** Person,” or whether it 
means ‘ Mode of existence,’ we learn that, as the Son is the 
shining forth of the Father’s glory, so His Person, or His mode 
of being, corresponds to that of the Father, (not only as a Son’s 
to a Father’s, but) as an impression on wax to the engraving on 
a seal. This indeed teaches us clearly, that the Son is of. one 
glory, and so of one eternal essence with the Father; but as the 
image on the wax is distinct from that upon the seal, so must 
there be a distinction between the Father and the Son, of which 
the distinction of the seal and the wax is a figure and similitude. 

The prayer of our Lord to His Father, in the seventeenth 
chapter of St. John, is another striking proof that the Son is 
indeed of one nature and substance, but not of one Person with 
the Father. No one can attentively peruse that prayer without 
seeing that our Lord speaks of Himself and His glory, as the 
Eternal Son, not merely as the Man Christ Jesus ; so that what- 
ever diversity we observe is not merely incident to our Lord's 
incarnation, but is also characteristic of Him in His uncreated 
nature. When, therefore, He says (ver. 1), “ Father, glorify Thy 


Sxc. ΠῚ OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 59 


Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee,” we may inquire, what 
sense the passage could bear, if the Father and the Son were per- 
sonally identical? Again, the same question is suggested by the. 
following: ‘‘ And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine 
own self with the glory that I had with Thee before the world 
was” (ver. 5). And “I have given unto them the words which 
Thou gavest Me, and they have received them, and have known 
surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that 
Thou didst send Me” (ver. 8). And again, “Thou lovedst Me 
before the foundation of the world” (ver. 24). Does not all this 
necessarily prove that, before the world was created, the Person 
of the Son was different from the Person of the Father? 

Perhaps the passage which most favours the Sabellian notions 
concerning the Person of the Son, is the important first chapter 
of St. John. That passage indeed distinctly asserts the Divinity 
of the Son; but language is used which may be supposed to mean 
that He is, as regards His Divine nature, not to be distinguished 
from the Father, or at least to be distinguished only as an emana- 
tion or attribute. Plato had used the term Λόγος : but he did not 
probably intend to distinguish, by any personal distinction, the 
Λόγος from God. ‘The early heretics had mixed up the philosophy 
of Plato with the religion of Christ ; and they used of the Son of 
God the language which the Platonists had used of the Λόγος. 
When, therefore, St. John came to use the same expression (adopted, 
as some think, on purpose to refute heretical teachers whilst using 
their own terms), it might be supposed that by the Λόγος he 
meant no more than the Thought or Reason of God, which, whilst 
it remained in the bosom of God, was the Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, the 
inward Reason or Thought ; when it was exerted to create the 
world or reveal the will of God, it became the Λόγος προφορικός, 
or, as it were, the outward Speech of God. 

This view of the passage may seem supported by the eighth 
chapter of Proverbs; where the Wisdom of God is spoken of in 
terms so like St. John’s language concerning the Logos, that the 
fathers, and many after them, have considered that Solomon must 
there have been writing of Christ. If this be the meaning of the 
Logos in St. John, we may paraphrase his words somewhat as 
follows: In the beginning was the Reason or Wisdom of God. 
That Wisdom was in God, nay, it was God (for as God is Love, 
so God is Wisdom). All things were made by the Reason or 
Wisdom of God, and without it was nothing made that was made. 
... . « It was the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh 


60 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. (Arr. 1. 


into the world. .... And this wisdom was incarnate, or manifested 
in Christ, and so dwelt among us. 

_ I have endeavoured to put this argument in its strongest form, 
that I may give it all the weight which it deserves. I proceed to 
show wherein it is defective and unsound. 

In the first place, the later Platonists, and still more, the 
Platonizing and Gnostic heretics, had a notion of the Logos very 
different from Plato’s, and far more personal. Again, the Gnos- 
tics, against whose opinions in all probability St. John directs 
many of his statements, considered the Pleroma or fulness of God 
to be made up of many AZons or Emanations from God, to which 
they gave the various names of Nus, Sophia, Dynamis, ἅς. The 
chief of these was the Logos, whom they believed to have de- 
scended on the man Jesus. It is probable that in the first chapter 
of his Gospel St. John uses the names of other Sons besides the 
Logos. For example, whereas he first calls the Son of God the 
Logos, he also tells us, that in Him was Zoe (life), and the Zoe 
was the Phos (light); by which he has been supposed to mean, 
that the Logos, the Zoe, the Phos, were not different AZons, but 
that, as St. Paul informed the Colossians (ii. 9), the whole Pleroma 
of Godhead dwelt in Christ, bodily. Again, St. John tells us that 
by the Logos, who is also the Phos and the Zoe, the world was 
created. The Gnostics taught that the world was created by a 
fallen AZon, who was an enemy to God, and that the Logos came 
down to destroy his dominion among men. But St. John teaches 
that the Logos was Himself the Creator of the Universe, and that 
without Him nothing was made that was made. Once more, he 
explains (ver. 14), that the Logos was really made flesh and dwelt 
among us. The Gnostics did not believe the Logos to be really 
made flesh ; but they supposed, either that He only assumed the 
appearance of humanity, or that He descended, for a time, on the 
man Jesus, and then left him at his crucifixion. Therefore St. 
John uses the strong expression ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, “ The Word 
was made flesh,” Lastly, he says that ‘“* we beheld His glory, the 
glory of the Monegenes (the Only-begotten) of the Father ; full of 
grace and truth.” Monogenes (only-begotten) was the name of 
another Acon in the Gnostic Pleroma. St. John therefore adds to 
the other titles of the Son this title of Monogenes, to show still 
farther, that the Lord Jesus, the Son of the Father, combined in 
His own Person all the attributes which the Gnostics assigned to 
these various A.ons, and was therefore not simply a single emana- 
tion from God, but, as St. Paul says, had in Him a fulness of 


Src. IT.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 61 


Deity, and was moreover the Creator of the universe, and not, as 
the Gnostics had it, one who was sent to overthrow the power of 
the Creator. 

Now, if this be the true explanation of St. John’s language, it 
is vastly unlike the language assigned to him by the Sabellian 
hypothesis. For whilst St. John is ascribing to the Son supreme 
Divinity, he does 501 a manner which essentially implies Person- 
ality too. 

But there are many other reasons why the word Lagos in the 
first chapter of St. John must be interpreted of a Person not of 
an attribute or quality, like Reason, or Wisdom. 

(1) The Word is said to be God. It is not said that the 
Word is θεῖος, divine, but Θεός, God. Now it may be possible 
improperly to say ““ God is wisdom,” as the Apostle says, “" God is 
love.” But we cannot say, ‘*God’s wisdom is God,” any more 
than “ Man’s wisdom or reason is man.” 

(2) The Word is said to be “with God,” not in God; which 
implies personality. God’s wisdom is in Him, not, properly speak- 
ing, with Him. 

(3) In ver. 11, the Word is said to have “come to His own;” 
meaning, no doubt, His own creatures; which again is personal. 

(4) In verse 14, He is called the Movoyevis, the Only-begotten. 
But the idea of Sonship is personal. We cannot conceive of the 
Son of God, but as one in some personal sense distinct from him : 
Just as the term son amongst men indicates one distinct from his 
father. And no doubt, as the term Logos is used to indicate that 
the Son from all eternity dwelt in the bosom of the Father, as the 
reason or wisdom dwells in the bosom of one endowed with such 
faculties ; so the word Son is used to indicate to our finite under- 
standings, that, notwithstanding such an intimate union, yet there 
is a distinction, such, in some degree, as the distinction of father 
and son. 

(5) He is said to have been “made flesh, and to have dwelt 
among us;” and that, in opposition to the fancy of the Gnosties or 
Docetz, that the Christ or Logos only took a phantastie body. 
Accordingly, in Rev. xix. 18, St. John sees a vision of a Person, 
who is evidently Jesus Christ, and whose name, written on His 
thigh, is King of kings, and Lord of lords; and he tells us that 
this Person is called “The Word of God.” 

(6) In the eighth verse, John the Baptist is contrasted with 
Him, and declared not to be the Light or the Logos. Now, John 
the Baptist was undoubtedly a person. We must therefore con- 


62 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. L 


clude that He, with whom he is contrasted, and of whom the 
Evangelist had been speaking before, was a Person also. 

Thus, I trust, we may conclude that the testimony borne by 
St. John, in the first chapter of his Gospel, is a testimony to the 
doctrine of the distinct personality of the Son, not to Sabellianism.! 
And with this we may venture to leave the question of the Per- 
sonality of God the Son. ’ 

(ii) We have next to show the Personality of the Spirit of God. 

Now, as we are baptized “in the Name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” as the Apostles bless in the name 
of Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost: and as on 
many occasions the Holy Spirit is joined with the Father and the 
Son; we cannot but think it probable, at least, that as the Father 
is a Person, and the Son has just been shown to be a Person dis- 
tinct from the Father, so the Holy Ghost is a Person also distinct 
from either of them. 

But beyond this, we find distinctly that, in Holy Scripture, 
personal actions are ascribed to the Holy Ghost. 

(1) He makes intercession with God the Father, Rom. viii. 26. 
Now to make intercession is a personal act. 

(2) He testifies. John xv. 26. 

(8). He teaches. John xiv. 26. 

(4) He hears and speaks. John xvi. 18. 

(5) He gives spiritual gifts, dividing them according to His 
will. 1 Cor. xii. 8, 11. 

(6) He inhabits a temple, 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19. This is the 
act of a Person, not of an attribute or influence. 

(7) He not only is represented as speaking generally, but we 
have speeches set down in Scripture, which the Holy Spirit is said 
to have uttered to peculiar persons, 6. g. Acts x. 28: ‘ The Spirit 
said unto Peter, Behold, three men seek thee .... I have sent 
them.” Acts xiii. 2: ‘The Holy Spirit said, Separate me Bar- 
nabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them.” 

(8) He is put in direct opposition to evil spirits, who are 
doubtless persons. 1 Sam. xvi. 14. 2 Chron. xviii. 20, 21. 

It has, however, been argued that these and similar personal 
actions, when ascribed to the Spirit, are the actions of the Father, 
who, when He does them Himself, is said to do them by His 
Spirit. In answer to this, it can plainly be shown that there are 
many personal actions ascribed to the Spirit which cannot be 


1 On this subject see Waterland’s first Sermon at Lady Moyer’s Lecture, on 
John i. 1, τα. p. 1. 


Src. 11.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. G3 


ascribed to the Father. For instance, in Rom. viii. 26, as we have 
just seen, the Spirit intercedes with the Father for the saints. But 
it cannot be said that the Father intercedes with Himself. Here 
then we have an instance of the performatice of a personal action 
by the Spirit, which cannot be performed by the Father. Again, 
Christ is said to send the Spirit (John xvi. 7). But it is never 
said of God the Father, that He is sent. He sends both the Son 
and the Spirit, but is never sent Himself. Moreover (in John xv. 
26), our Lord promises “ to send the Spirit from the Father.” If 
the Spirit means here the Father, ‘then Christ must send the 
Father from the Father.!. Again (in chapter xvi. 18, 14), when 
our Lord promises to send the Paraclete, He says, that ‘* He,” the 
Paraclete, ‘shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall 
hear, that shall He speak.” ‘ He shall glorify Me; for He shall 
receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you.” Now, it certainly 
cannot be said of God the Father (from whom eternally both Son 
and Spirit are derived), that He should not speak of Himself, but 
should speak what He heard only. Nothing which implies sudbor- 
dination is ever spoken of God the Father. We conclude, there- 
fore, that the Spirit (who is here represented as acting personal 
parts, and parts which cannot belong to the Person of the Father) 
is both a Person, and a Person distinct from the Father. 

The fact that the Spirit is called Paraclete, which means either 
Comforter or, more probably, Advocate,? seems to imply distinct 
personality. 

The use of the masculine pronoun He, ἐκεῖνος, to designate the 
Holy Ghost, surely indicates, that reference is made to a personal 
Agent, not to an influence or attribute. This is observable espe- 
cially in John xvi. 13, where we have in immediate connection, 
** When He the Spirit of truth is come,” ἐκεῖνος, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀλη- 
θείας, a masculine pronoun, whilst τὸ Πνεῦμα is neuter.® 

From these, then, and similar reasons, we conclude that the 
Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son. 

Thus we have reached the conclusion of our reasoning on the 
subject of Personality, and so we believe our Fourth Proposition 
to be established: that although the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost are but one God, yet are they clearly distinguished 
from One another, and distinguished as Personal Agents. 

Now this is the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, as held by the 


1 See Hey, 11. p. 448. 3 The Personality of the Holy Ghost 
2. See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. vi11. is fully and admirably treated by Bp. 
note, fol.; and Suicer, s. v. Pearson, Art. vir. p. 808, fol. 


. 829, 
Haptiaty 06. 


64 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. L[ART. L 


Catholic fathers, expressed in the Creeds of the Church, and ex~- 
hibited in this first Article of the Reformed Church of England, 
namely, that “There is but one God,” yet that ‘in the Unity of 
that Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, 
and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” 

This conclusion we deduce from the statements of Scripture. 
We do not pretend to explain the mystery, for it is, of course, 
above the reach of finite understanding. Yet we cannot doubt 
that, in the substance of it at least, our conclusions are legitimate. 
To explain the subject philosophically would be inconsistent with 
the purpose in hand, inconsistent with the assertion that it is a 
mystery (that is, a thing which human reason cannot fathom), and 
therefore impossible. It may not even be altogether possible to 
mark out accurately the exact distinctions between Tritheism and 
Trinitarianism on the one hand, between Trinitarianism and Sabel- 
lianism on the other. This, by the way, should make us not the 
less earnest to maintain the truth, nay! the more earnest, because 
of the greater danger of error; but yet the more tender, the more 
ready in meekness to instruct those who from the difficulty of 
apprehending have been led to doubt this great article of the faith. 
But, though all this is true, yet, thoughtfully considered, this doe- 
trine of the Trinity, though above our understanding, does not neces- 
sarily appear contrary to our reason. That reason may well teach 
us that it is likely God should subsist in a manner above what we 
can apprehend. That reason may teach us, that, though God’s 
nature is infinite, and therefore cannot be multiplied; yet, seeing 
that he has shown himself to be essentially loving, and loving to 
have partakers of His love, it is not impossible that there might 
exist, even in the divine Essence, something like a Personal di- 
versity, that so He, who, as regards the creature, dwells in light 
which is unapproachable, might have within Himself that which 
would be capable of receiving and imparting the love which can be 
perfect in God alone. Yet such a diversity existing in the God- 
head, which from its very perfection can admit neither multiplica- 
tion nor division, could not constitute a distinction of Deity, though 
it would constitute what, in the language of Theology, has been 
called a distinct Personality. 

The Fathers, who used the language which has been inserted 
in the Creeds and generally adopted in the Church, never thought, 
when they used to speak of three Persons in one God, of speaking 
of such three Persons as they would speak of persons and person- 
ality among created beings. They did not consider, for example, 


OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 65 


the persons of the Father and the Son as they would have done 
the persons of Abraham and Isaac,— the Persons of the Holy 
Trinity as they would have done the persons of Peter, Paul, and 
John, which are separate from one another, and do not in any way 
depend on each other for their essence. They held, that the 
Father is the Head and Fountain of Deity (My) Θεότητος), from 
whom the Son and Holy Spirit are from all eternity derived, but 
so derived as not to be divided from the Father; but they are in 
the Father and the Father in them, by a certain περιχώρησις or 
inhabitation. So then, though they acknowledged the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost to be really three Persons, yet they held 
“them to have no divided or separate existence, as three different 
men have, but to be intimately united and conjoined one to an- 
other, and to exist in each other, and by the said ineffable 
περιχώρησις or inhabitation to pervade or permeate one another.”?} 


Src. ΠῚ 


1 Bull, Posth. Works, p. 1004, quoted by 
Waterland, Works, 11. p. 211, “ Patrem, 
Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, cum revera 
tres sint Personz, nequaquam tamen ut 
tres homines seorsum et separatim ex- 
istere, sed intime sibi invicem cohzrere 
et conjunctos esse; adeoque alterum in 
altero existere, atque, ut ita loquar, im- 
meare invicem et penetrare per ineffabi- 
lem quandam περιχώρησιν, quam circumin- 
sessionem Scholastici vocant.” — Bull, Def. 
Fid. Nic. 11. 9, 28; Works, 1v. p. 363; 
see also Lib. 1v. § 4; also Pearson, On 
the Creed, Art. 11. p. 138, fol. 

On the meaning of the word Person, 
see Waterland, Works, 111. p. 338. 


{[Norr. It may not be useless to the 


The term by which to designate what 
we call person, was early a subject of 
dispute. The Greeks mostly used the 
word ὑπόστασις, the Latins Persona. Yet 
among the Greeks it was not uniformly 
agreed to speak of τρεῖς Ὑποστάσεις and 
pia Οὐσία. Some, on the contrary, iden- 
tified ὑπόστασις with οὐσία. and spoke of 
μία Ὕπόστασις. These differences in lan- 
guage led to the Council of Alexandria, 
A.D. 862, at which Athanasius was pres- 
ent, and at which this Aoyouayia was 
condemned. 

See Athanasius, Dial. 11. Tom. 11. ἢ. 
159; Suicer, 8. v. ὑπόστασις : and New- 
man’s Hist. of Arians, ch. v. § 2. 


student in Theology, to become familiar 


with the following analysis of the Scriptural argument for the Doctrine of the 
Holy Trinity in Unity. I. God is one. II. The Old Testament contains intima- 
tions of a plurality in this One Godhead. III. The New Testament affords proof 
by (a) necessary inferences, and (b) express declarations: (1) that the Father is 
God ; (2) that the Son is God; (3) that the Holy Ghost is God. IV. How are these 
phenomena to be reconciled ? There are but three modes: (1) Tritheism ; (2) Sabel- 
lianism ; (8) the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. The first of these modes de- 
stroys the Divine Unity. The second ignores all the personal characteristics and 
agencies attributed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Logically, then, 
the third remains. 

By bringing together the Scripture passages which belong to each of the above 
heads, and then, by studying out the exact way in which the Catholic Doctrine of 
the Trinity harmonizes what the other two schemes reject, the student may thor- 
oughly appropriate and make his own the very valuable collections and arguments 
of the preceding pages. 

The fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Owen’s Introduction, may be profitably 
read. —J. W.] 


ARTICLE IL 


---ο--- 


Of the Word or Son of God which was 
made very Man. 


Tue Son, which is the Word of the 
Father, begotten from everlasting of the 
Father, the very and eternal Gop, and of 
one substance with the Father, took 
man’s nature in the womb of the blessed 
Virgin, of her substance: so that two 
whole and perfect natures, that is to say, 
the Godhead and Manhood, were joined 
together in one Person, never to be di- 
vided, whereof is one Christ, very God 
and very man; who truly suffered, was 
crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile 
His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, 
not only for original guilt, but aiso for 
all actual sins of men. 


Verbum Dei verum hominem esse 
Jactum. 


Fixtivs, qui est Verbum Patris, ab zxter- 
no a Patre genitus, verus et eternus Deus, 
ac Patri consubstantialis, in utero beate 
Virginis, ex illius substantia naturam 
humanam assumpsit: ita ut due nature, 
divina et humana, integre atque perfecte 
in unitate persone fuerint inseparabiliter 
conjuncte : ex quibus est unus Christus, 
verus Deus, et verus homo, qui vere 
passus est, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepul- 
tus, ut Patrem nobis reconciliaret, esset- 
que hostia, non tantum pro culpa origi- 
nis, verum, etiam pro omnibus actualibus 
hominum peccatis. 





Sxcrion I. — HISTORY. 
pees Article evidently treats of three distinct points. I. The 


Divine nature of the Son of God; 


II. His incarnation; 


ΠῚ. His sufferings, sacrifice, and propitiation. 


I. First, as regards the Divine nature of the Son of God: as 


it was shown under the first Article that He was of one substance 
and coeternal with the Father, so the history of the different 
opinions concerning His consubstantiality and co-eternity formed 
part of the history of that Article. It is not necessary to repeat 
either those arguments or that history here. 

I shall consider that I have said enough concerning the Divine 
nature of our blessed Lord, when, in addition to His consubstan- 
tiality and co-eternity before treated of, I have spoken concerning 
His generation from the Father, whereby He is the Begotten or 
Only-begotten Son of God. 

It has already been shown that the Arians and Eunomians held 
that the Son might be called μονογενής, not as being the only- 
begotten of the Father, by a true and proper generation, but as 


Sec. 1.1 OF THE SON OF GOD. 67 


having been begotten or created by the Father alone;! and the 
Socinians have endeavoured to explain the word as though it 
meant no more than beloved, as Isaac was called the only son of 
Abraham, though Ishmael was his son also. 

It is hardly necessary to observe that the orthodox fathers held 
that the Son was begotten of the Father from all eternity, so be- 
fore all time deriving His Divine Essence from His Father (μόνος 
ἐκ μόνου γεγέννηται τοῦ Tlarpés, Cyril. Alexandr. in Act. Coneil. 
Ephes.) This eternal generation they held to be a proof that 
He was of one substance and eternity with the Father; but the re- 
lation of Father to Son they held to constitute a priority of order, 
though not of nature or power. ‘They held, that is, not that the 
Son was, in His nature as God, in any degree different from, or in- 
ferior to the Father; but that, as the Father alone was the source 
and fountain (πηγή, ἀρχή, αἰτία) of Deity, the Son having been be- 
gotten, and the Spirit proceeding, so there was a subordination, 
without diversity, of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the 
Father and the Son.? It may be difficult to conceive of priority of 
order, without being led to believe in superiority of nature. This 
seems to have been the cause why Dr. Clarke and other high Ari- 
ans, perceiving the truth of the doctrine that there was a certain 
priority of order among the Persons of the undivided Trinity, and 
unable to distinguish between priority of order and superiority of 
nature, were led into an assertion of the heretical doctrine of the 
inferiority of the nature of the Son. 


II. The second part of the Article contains the doctrine of the 
Incarnation. oy 

Errors upon this doctrine were held by the Gnostics, or Docete, 
and the Manichees, who taught that our Lord’s Body was but a 
phantom, and that He came not in the flesh, but in appearance 
only (οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ, ἀλλὰ δοκήσει) ; by those heretics, who denied the 
Divinity of our Lord, and therefore, of course, the union of the two 
natures in one Person; and in short by all the Oriental and Judaiz- 
ing sects. But the most important controversies on this mystery 
arose from the errors of, 1, the Arians and Apollinarians; 2, the 
Nestorians ; ὃ, the Eutychians; 4, the Monothelites. . 

1. Arius taught that the Son of God did not take human nature, 


1 Ol ᾿Αρειανοὶ λέγουσιν, ὅτι μονογενὴς 53. The statements of the Ante-Nicene 
λέγεται, διότι αὐτὸς μόνος γέγονε καὶ ἐκτίσϑη fathers on this subject are fully investi- 
ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὰ ὁ ἄλλα πάντα bn’ αὐτοῦ. --- gated by Bp. Bull, F. D. Sect.1v. De Sub- 
Theophyl. in Joh. cap. iii. See Pearson, ordinatione Filii. See also Suicer, 8. vv. 
On the Creed, p. 188; Suicer, 1. p. 875. αἰτία, ἀρχή, πηγή. 


68 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Arr. IL 


but a human body only, and that the Divine Word was in the 
place of the soul.? 

Apollinaris, who maintained against Arius the consubstantiality 
of the Son, agreed with him in a great measure concerning the 
mode of His incarnation, teaching that our Lord took a human body, 
and a sensitive or animal soul, but that the place of the rational 
soul was supplied by God the Word, thus distinguishing, according 
to a common notion of those times, between the νοῦς, or mens, and 
the ψυχή, or anima.” 

2. The Nestorian controversy arose as follows: The Greek 
fathers, justly esteeming that our Lord, from the moment that He 
was conceived in the womb of His mother, was not only man but 
God also, and maintaining that the union between His two natures 
was so perfect that it was right, for example, to say “" God suffered,” 
went so far as to call the Virgin Mary by the title Θεοτόκος, or 
Deipara. Nestorius declaimed strongly against this title, as indi- 
cating, according to his view of the subject, that God was liable to 
change, whereas God can neither be born nor die. He held that 
the Man Christ Jesus only could derive His birth from His earthly 
parent ; and that therefore the Virgin might be called Χριστοτόκος, 
but not Θεοτόκος. These statements were considered to involve a 
denial of the union of the two natures of God and man in the one 
Person of Christ. Nestorius was accused of teaching that there 
were not only two natures, but two. persons in Christ, namely, the 
Person of God the Son, and the person of the man Christ Jesus. 
For this doctrine (though he appears to have denied the inferences 
drawn from his statements) he was condemned in the Council of 
Ephesus, a.p. 431, summoned by Theodosius the younger, and at 
which Cyril of Alexandria presided. This council determined that 
the true doctrine was that ‘Christ was but one Person, in whom 
two natures are intimately united, but not confounded.” * 

The tenets of the Nestorians, however, spread rapidly and 
widely in the East. They were embraced by the school of Edessa, 
were eagerly propagated by Barsumas, who became Bishop of 


1 See Pearson, On the Creed, p. 160. “In a Catholica dissenserunt, dicentes, sicut 
80 autem quod Christum sine anima so- Ariani, Deum Christum carnem sine 
lam carnem suscepisse arbitrantur minus anima suscepisse. In qua questione tes- 
noti sunt: ... sed hoc verum esse et timoniis Evangelicis victi, mentem, qua 
Epiphanius non tacuit, et ego ex eorum  rationalis est anima hominis, defuisse an- 
oe scriptis et collocutionibus cer- im Christi, sed pro hac ipsum Verbum 

ime comperi.” — Augustin. Heres. 49, in eo fuisse dixerunt.”—Augustin. Heres. 
Tom. vii. p. 18. δῦ, Tom. vir. p. 19. 

* Pearson, as above. Mosheim, Cent. ἃ The technical term for this union 
tv. pt. τι. ch. v. § 17. Neander, C. H. was the ἕνωσις nad’ ὑπόστασιν ---- ὮγῬΟ- 
rv. pp. 98-106. “Apollinaristas Apol- static union. 
linaris instituit, qui de anima Christi * Neander, rv. pp. 128-162. 


8κο. 17 OF THE SON OF GOD. 69 


Nisibis in 435, and by his influence took such root in Persia that a 
Nestorian Patriarch was established at Seleucia, to whose authority, 
even to modern times, the Nestorian churches have been subjected. 
Nestorianism took deep root in many soils ; and the Nestorians 
proved themselves zealous missionaries. Their opinions spread 
rapidly into Armenia, Chaldea, Syria, Arabia, and India.1 They 
afterwards extended the Christian faith among the Tartar tribes 
of Scythia; and, in the thirteenth century, established their bishops 
and clergy even among the Chinese. In the eighth century, the 
sect called Adoptionists revived unconsciously a form of Nestori- 
anism in Spain.2— And, in the twelfth century, the Nominalists 
were accused of Nestorianism, as well as Tritheism, by their ad- 
versaries.® 

3. Eutyches, an abbot at Constantinople, from opposition to 
Nestorianism, was led into the other extreme. He asserted that 
the Divine and human natures of Christ were originally distinct, 
but that, after their union, they became but one nature, the human 
nature being transubstantiated into the Divine. Before the hypo- 
static union, he acknowledged two natures; but after that union 
he acknowledged but one. The Council of Chalcedon, which was 
summoned by Marcian in 451, and is reckoned the fourth general 
Council, condemned Eutyches, and declared the Catholic doctrine 
to be, that ‘in Christ two distinct natures are united in one 
Person, without any change, mixture, or confusion.”’ + 

The Eutychian, or Monophysite doctrine, notwithstanding this 
condemnation, rapidly gained ground, principally through the zeal 
of Jacob Baradeus, Bishop of Edessa, from whom the sect of the 
Eutychians are called Jacobites. It was established in Syria, 
Mesopotamia, Armenia, Egypt, Abyssinia. The Eutychians be- 
came united under the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, and 
so continue to this day. They are now divided into three principal 
societies : the Oriental Monophysites, subject to the patriarch of 
Antioch ; the African Monophysites, subject to the patriarch of 
Alexandria, embracing the Copts and Abyssinians ; and _ thirdly, 
the Armenians, who, though agreeing with the other Monophysites 
concerning the natures of Christ, are not united with them in 
other points of faith and discipline, and are subject to patriarchs 
of their own.® 


1 Suicer, 8. vv. Θεοτόκος and Χριστο- * Suicer, 8. v. ἀκέφαλοι. Pearson, p. 
τόκος. Pearson, On the Creed, pp. 178, 162. Mosheim, Cent. v. pt. 11. ch. v. 
163. Mosheim, Cent. v. pt. 1. ch. v. Neander, 1v. pp. 203-231. 

Neander, C. H. 1v. pp. 269-271. 5 Mosheim, Cent. 1v. pt. τι. ch. νυ. 

2 Neander, v. pp. 216, seg. Cent. xvi. pt. 1. ὃ 3. Neander, 1v. pp 

8 See p. 33, note 1. 271-278. 


70 OF THE SON OF GOD. (Arr. IL 


4. In the seventh century a new controversy on this impor- 
tant subject arose ; and a more subtle question was mooted. This 
question was, whether in Christ there were two distinct wills, the 
Divine and the human, or but one, the Divine. Those who 
adopted the opinion that there was but one will in Christ, amo 
whom was Honorius, Bishop of Rome, were called Monothelites, 
Μονοθελῆται, and were condemned in 680 by the sixth general 
Council, the third Constantinopolitan. Their doctrine was sup- 
posed to border too closely on that of the Monophysites. It 
appears, however, that they entirely disclaimed Monophysite 
érrors; and from the ambiguous manner im which their views 
were expressed, it has been questioned whether they held that the 
human will in Christ was wholly swallowed up in the Divine will, 
or only that it was so completely subservient to the Divine will 
as always to move in unison with it. 


ΕΠ]. <As to the third division of this Article, the terms of it 
probably had reference to the error of the Docetze, who denied 
that our Lord “ truly” suffered, teaching either that He suffered 
only in appearance, or, as Basilides would have it, that Simon the 
Cyrenian was crucified in His place. 

Of course it may be added, that the propitiatory sacrifice of 
Christ is necessarily denied by all humanitarian heretics, and 
others, who nearly symbolize with them. The Swedenborgians 
also of late times, though in some sense admitting the Atonement, 
appear to deny anything of the nature of a vicarious sacrifice, 
maintaining that redemption consists in the subduing of the powers 
of evil within the Christian, by virtue of union with the Redeemer 
in His human nature. 





ΒΈΟΤΙΟΝ II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


[, ἜΣ division of the subjects treated of in this Article, which 
has been suggested above, leads us to consider in the first 

place the eternal generation of the Son of God. 
That the nature and being of the Son were from all eternity, 
and that He was of one substance with the Father, having been 
shown in the First Article, it is only necessary to prove here, that 


1 Mosheim, Cent. vir. pt. τι. ch. v. 


Sc. IL] OF THE SON OF GOD. τί 


that nature, though eternal, is yet derived from the Father in 
such a manner that the relationship of the Father to the Son is 
best expressed to our understandings by the term, and under the 
notion of generation. 

In order to represent to us the mode of existence of the Second 
Person in the Trinity, and His relation to the First, Holy Scrip- 
ture has used various terms, drawn from human relations. The 
most common and important are the terms “ Word” and “Son.” 
The term ‘“ Word,” or ‘ Logos,” is probably used to exhibit the 
intimate connection of the one Person with the other; that, as 
reason dwells in man, so the Logos dwells in God, and that, as 
the word goeth forth from the heart and lips of man, so the Word 
is sent forth from God the Father. 

In like manner, we must conceive the term “‘Son” to indicate 
something definite concerning the relation of the Son to the 
Father; the variety of terms being adopted, probably because 
no one term could sufficiently convey to our understanding just 
notions of the nature and of the connection of the Persons in the 
Godhead. 

That God the Son is not the same Person with God the 
Father has already been shown. That He is called the “ Word” 
and the “Son” of the Father, seems sufficiently to declare that 
He derives in some manner His Being from the Father, even as 
the word springs from him who thinks and speaks, as the son is 
derived from him who begets him. This is farther evident from 
express statements in Holy Scripture. For example, our Lord is 
distinctly said to be begotten of the Father. He is called the 
Begotten and ““ Only-begotten of the Father,” John i. 14. The 
Psalmist, as explained by St. Paul, tells us that God said to our 
Saviour, ‘Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” 
Ps, τ. 7. Acts xiii. 88. Heb. i. 5. And so He is spoken of 
as having been “begotten before every creature.’ (IIpwrdroxos 
πάσης κτίσεως. Col. i. 15.) 

In correspondence with this notion of Sonship, our Lord is 
constantly called “‘ Heir of all things,” and said to be Possessor 
of all things, by right of Sonship. (See Heb. i. 2, 3, 4; iii. 6. 
John xvi. 15.) Again, our Lord speaks of Himself as deriving 
His own eternal Being from God the Father “As the living 
Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father” (John vi. 57), 


1In John y. 18, our Lord speaks of John vi. 46, ὁ ὧν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, He that 
God as His true and proper Father, ἀλλὰ hath His being from God. 
καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε τὸν Θεόν. Compare 


22 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Arr. IL 


and again, ‘As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given 
to the Son to have life in Himself” (John ν. 26). From which 
we learn that the mode of existence which the Father possessed 
from all eternity, He communicated to the Son. All created 
beings have their existence from, and their life in, God. But the 
Son, who is uncreated, derives indeed His Being from the Father, 
but it is a Being of the same kind as the Father’s, and therefore 
not dependent, like a creature’s, but independent, self-existent, 
having life in itself. 

Accordingly the Son is farther called “the Brightness of His 
Father’s glory, the express Image of His Person,” Heb. i. 3; 
words which in the Greek indicate a relation of the Son to His 
Father, like that of brightness to light, like that of the impression 
of a seal on wax to the seal, to which it answers.! 

Now the communication of the nature of God, thus made by 
the Father to the Son, may be called a proper generation. Nay! 
it is more proper than any earthly generation. For, in human 
generation, the son indeed derives his nature from his father, but 
it is in a manner according with the imperfection of humanity. 
Man’s generation is in time, and, as connected with that which is 
material, results, in part at least, from that property of matter 
ealled divisibility. The son too, in human beings, when derived 
from the father, becomes separate from him. 

But this is not so with God. God’s eternal perfections He, 
from all eternity, communicated to His Son. ‘So also the Divine 
Essence, being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division, 
and in respect of its infinity incapable of multiplication, is so com- 
municated as not to be multiplied, insomuch that He, which pro- 
ceedeth by that communication, hath not only the same nature, 
but is also the same God. The Father God, and the Word God; 
Abraham man, and Isaac man: but Abraham one man, Isaac 
another man ; not so the Father one God, and the Word another ; 
but the Father and the Word both the same God. Being then 
the propriety of generation is founded in the essential similitude 
of the son unto the father, by reason of the same which he receiv- 
eth from him; being the full, perfect nature of God is communi- 
cated unto the Word, and that more intimately, and with a greater 
unity or identity than can be found in human generation ; it follow- 
eth, that this communication of the Divine nature is the proper 


1 Origen, commenting on these words Filius, ex ipso inseparabiliter velut splen- 
of the Papeete, Splendor est gloria Dei, dor ex luce procedens, et illuminans uni- 
says: “ Deus lux est, secundum Joannem, versam creaturam.’’? — Ve Principiis, Lib. 
Splendor ergo hujus Lucis est Unigenitus 1. ch τι. n. 7. 


Sxo. IL] OF THE SON OF GOD. 73 


generation, by which Christ is, and is called the true and proper 
Son of God.”’! 

This peculiar relation of the Father to the Son is that which 
has authorized the Church, while she confesses an equality of 
nature, to admit also a priority of order in the Persons of the 
Trinity. The Father hath this preéminence, that He is not only 
uncreated, but unbegotten, too. He derives His essence from none, 
being Himself the Fountain of life and the Source of being. The 
Son, too, is uncreated, deriving His being, not by creation but by 
generation, from the Father. Yet in this He is subordinate to 
the Father; not that His attributes are lower, or His nature in- 
ferior, but that both are derived. The Father begat; the Son is 
begotten. The Father is Life, Christ too is Life; but He con- 
fesses that He has life from the Father (John vii. 29), and that 
“He liveth by the Father” (John vi. 57). ‘The Father hath 
life in Himself: ”’ so too has the Son. But the Father not only in 
Himself but from Himself. The Son in Himself, but from the 
Father (John v. 26).2 On this account, therefore, and in this 
sense, ‘‘the Father is greater than the Son” (John xiv. 28); 
greater as regards priority of order, not greater as regards infin- 
ity of nature.® 


II. The second part of the Article concerns the true doctrine 
of the Incarnation of the Son of God. It is thus expressed: “ The 
Son... . took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, 
of her substance, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is 
to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one 
Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and 
very man.” 

1. The wording of this is very important. “The Son of God 
took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin.” It appears 
directly from Holy Scripture, that the Being conceived by the 


1 Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 11. p. 188, 
fol. So Hooker, Leel. Pol. Bk. v. ch. 
tiv. 2. “By the gift of eternal genera- 
tion, Christ hath received of the Father 
one and in number the self-same sub- 
stance, which the Father hath of Him- 
self unreceived from any other. For 
every ‘beginning’ (Eph. iii. 15) is a 
father unto that which cometh of it, and 
every ‘ offspring’ is a son to that out of 
which it groweth. Seeing therefore that 
the Father alone is originally that Deity, 
which Christ originally is not, (for Christ 
is God by being of God; light by issuing 

10 


out of light) ; it followeth hereupon, that 
whatsoever Christ hath common unto 
Him with His heavenly Father, the same 
of necessity must be given Him, but nat 
urally and eternally given ; not bestowed 
by way of benevolence and favour, as 
the other gifts ” (7. e. those of union and 
of unction) “both are.” 

2 “Pater vita in Semetipso, non 
a Filio: Filius vita in Semetipso, sed 
a Patre.” — Augustin. In Johan. Tract. 
x1x. Tom. 111. par. 11. p. 443. 

8 See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 1 
p- 84; Bull, 2, D. § 4. 


74 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Anr. IL 


Virgin was, from the moment of His conception, the Son of God 
(Luke i. 35, 48. Matt. i. 20, 23). Had the human nature of our 
Lord been conceived in the womb of the Virgin, and then united 
to the Divine nature; it is clear that Christ would have consisted 
of two distinct persons: one person, the Son of God, the other 
person, that human being who had been conceived of the Virgin 
Mary. For if a human being had been first conceived of the 
Virgin, and then united to God, it is clear that that human being 
must have been a human person, previously to the union with the 
Divine Person; and so the incarnation would have been the union 
of two persons, not the union of two natures.’ It was from want 
of attention to this, that Nestorius was led into error. He denied 
that the Person, who was born of the Virgin, was God ; and said 
that He was only man. Hence he was obliged to divide Christ 
into two persons. « “ If,” says Hooker, “the Son of God had taken. 
to himself a man now made and already perfected, it would of 
necessity follow that there are m Christ two persons, the one 
assuming, the other assumed; whereas the Son of God did not 
assume a man’s person to His own, but a man’s nature to His 
own Person; and therefore took semen, the seed of Abraham, the 
very first original element of our nature, before it was come to have 
any personal human subsistence. ‘The flesh, and the conjunction 
of the flesh with God, began both at one instant; His making and 
taking to Him our flesh was but one act; so that in Christ there 
is no personal subsistence but one, and that from everlasting. By 
taking only the nature of man, He still continueth one Person, 
and changeth but the manner of His subsisting, which was before 
in the mere glory of the Son of God, and is now in the habit of 
our flesh.” ? 

Thus it is said by St. John, “The Word was made flesh ” 
(John i. 14); by St. Paul, “ Forasmuch as the children are par- 
takers of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same” (Heb. ii. 
14). ‘He took not the nature of angels, but He took the seed of 
Abraham” (Heb. ii. 16). It was “* Emmanuel, God with us,” 
who was born of the Virgin (Isai. vii. 14. Matt. i. 28); yea, “ the 
Son of God” (Luke i. 82, 35).8 


1 Primo illud nos oportet scire, quod 44; ii. 11. The former passage is — 
aliud est in Christo Deitatis ejus natura; cially clear, showing that Elisabeth by 
quod est Unigenitus Filius Patris ; etalia the Holy Ghost, and even the yet unborn 
humana natura quam in novissimis tem- “ prophet of the Highest,’”’ acknowledged 


ribus wig dispensatione suscepit.””"— the presence of their “ Lord,” when He 
rigen. De Principiis, Lib. 1. ch. τα. n. 1. was yet in the womb of His mother. The 
2 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. Bk. v. uu. earliest futhers speak as plainly on the 


8 The Scriptures clearly indicate this subject as if they had foreseen the heresy 
to have been the case. See Luke i. 89- of Nestorius: e. g. ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ 


Sec. 11.} OF THE SON OF GOD. 


75 


The fact, thus exhibited, that the Son of God took in the womb 
of the Virgin the nature of man, explains some of the most re- 
markable passages in the new Testament. As there is but one 
Person in Christ, and that the Person of the Son of God, it natu- 
rally follows, that even the actions proper to man will at times be 
attributed to God, and the actions proper to God will be attributed 
to the man Jesus.!. Thus we understand the Scripture, when it 
says that men “ crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. ii. 8); when 
it says that “God purchased the Church with His own Blood” 
(Acts xx. 28); because, though God in His Divine Nature can- 
not be crucified, and has no blood to shed; yet the Son of God, 
the Lord of Glory, took into His Person the nature of man, in 
which nature he could suffer, could shed his Blood, could be eruci- 
fied, could die. Thus again, we understand the Scripture, when 
it attributes to a man powers and attributes which belong only to 
God. Our Lord (John iii. 13) speaks of none having gone up to 
Heaven “ but the Son of man, which is in Heaven”: yet the Son 
of man was then on earth. Omnipresence is an attribute of none 
but God. But the Son of man here spoken of was God, God 
having taken into His own Person man’s nature.?- And so “as oft 
as we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claimeth, or to 
man what his Deity hath right unto, we understand by the name 
of God and the name of Man, neither the one nor the other nature, 
but the whole Person of Christ, in which both natures are.”? Of 
that Person, then, we may say, that He reigns as God, that He 
was subject as man. Of that Person we may say, that He liveth 
forever, and yet that He suffered and died. Of that Person we 
may say, that He “ was crucified through weakness,” and yet that 
He hath “* the Power of God.” Of that Person we may say, that 
whilst He was bound down to live on earth, He yet filled Heaven 
with His presence and glory.* 


Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήϑη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ᾽ οἰκονο- 
μίαν Θεοῦ, ἐκ σπέρματος μὲν Δαβὶδ, Πνεύμα- 
toc δὲ dyiov. —Ignat. Ad Ephes. 18. 

1“ Cum ergo in eo quedam ita videa- 
mus humana ut nihil a communi morta- 
lium fragilitate distare videantur, que- 
dam ita divina ut nulli alii-nisi illi prime 
et ineffabili nature conveniant Deitatis, 
heret humani intellectus angustia, et 
tante admirationis stupore percussa quo 
declinet, quid teneat, quo se convertat, 
ignorat. Si Deum sentiat, mortalem 
videt : si hominem putet, devicto mortis 
imperio cum spoliis redeuntem a mortuis 
cernit. . . . Nam et Filius Dei mortuus 
esse dicitur, pro ea scilicet natura que 


mortem utique recipere poterat: et filius 
hominis appellatur, qui venturus in Dei 
Patris gloria cum sanctis angelis pradi- 
eatur.”’ — Origen. De Principiis, Lib. 11. 
ch. vi. n. 2, 3. 

2 Compare John i. 48 

3 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. y. writ. 4. 

4°Enl γῆς piv γὰρ ὁ Ὑἱὸς καὶ 6 Θεὸς 
Λόγος βεβήκει. οὐρανοῦ δὲ ἥπτετο, καὶ 
πώντες ἐχϑροὶ ἐπληροῦντο τῆς αὐτοὺ δόξης" 
καὶ ἐν Μαρίᾳ ἐτύγχανε, καὶ ἄνϑρωπος ἐγέ- 
veto, ἀλλὰ τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ ἐπλήρουν τὰ 
ciuravta.—Epiphan. Heres. rx1x. Tom. 
1. p. 788. Colon. 

Hooker does not scruple to say : “ The 
union of the flesh with Deity is to that 


76 OF THE SON OF GOD. {Arr. IL 


2. The Article, having expressed the truth that the Son of 
God took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her 
substance, adds, ‘So that two whole and perfect natures, that is 
to say, the Godhead, and Manhood, were joined together in one 
Person.” Having already shown that there was but one Person 
with two natures, it is necessary farther to observe, that those two 
natures continued perfect and entire; for though the Person vas 
but one, the Person of the eternal Son of God, yet we must not 
suppose that the verity of either of His natures was lost or ab- 
sorbed. , 

(1) That He was perfect God appears by what was proved 
under the first Article ; and indeed His Divine nature could’not 
cease to be Divine by his taking to Him the nature of man; for 
God is not liable to change or to diminution. And though, by 
taking human nature, the Son of God was enabled to suffer, which 
to God simply would have been impossible, yet by taking human 
nature He did not change the nature of God. And this appears 
from plain passages of Scripture; for where the Son of God is 
spoken of as God, it is constantly in. those very passages where 
He is called by the name of Christ or of Jesus or of the Son of 
Man, or is spoken of as incarnate, 6. g. John i. 14; iii. 13; viii. 
58; x. 80. Acts xx. 28. Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii. 5, 6. Col. i. 
14, 15, &e. 

(2) That He was perfect Man will appear, if we can show that 
He had a human Body and a human Soul, both ‘subject to human 
infirmities and invested with human attributes. 

That he had a human Body appears from His birth of the 
Virgin (Matt. i. 25. Luke 1. 85; ii. 7); from His growth like 
other children (Luke ii. 52); from His liability to hunger (Luke 
iv. 2); to weariness (John iv. 6); to pain (Luke xxii. 44); to 
bleeding and bloody sweat (John xix. 84. Luke xxii. 44); to 
wounds and laceration (John xx. 27); from His possessing flesh 
and bones (Luke xxiv. 89, 40) ; from His crucifixion, death, burial, 
and resurrection. 

That he had a perfect human Soul appears from His “ increasing 
in wisdom ” (Luke ii. 52); from the possibility of His being ig- 
norant (Mark xiii. 32), (which could not be true of Him con- 


flesh a gift of principal grace and favour: ing it His own inseparable habitation, we 
for by virtue of this grace, man is really cannot now conceive, how God should - 
made God, a creature is exalted above the without man either exercise Divine pow- 
dignity of all creatures, and hath all crea- er, or receive the glory of Divine praise, 
tures else under it.” And again, “ Since for man is in both the associate of Deity.’ 
God hath deified our nature, though not — eel. Pol. Bk. v. uv. 

by turning it into Himself, yet by mak- 


880. II] OF THE SON OF GOD. TT 


sidered only in His Divine nature); from His being liable to 
temptation (Matt. iv. 1. Heb. iv. 15); from His feeling sorrow 
and sympathy (Luke xix. 41. John xi. 35. Matt. xxiii. 37, 38, 
ὥς.) ; from the separation of His Soul from His Body at death, 
the Soul descending to Hades, whilst the Body was laid in the 
grave (Acts ii. 27, 31). 

And as the nature of His Godhead was not changed (God not 
being capable of change) by union with His manhood; so also the 
nature of His manhood was not changed by being taken into His ~ 
Godhead, farther than that it was thereby exalted, ennobled, 
glorified. For the object of God’s taking flesh was that He might 
take to Himself a nature like our own, in which He might be 
tempted with our temptations, liable to our sorrows and infirmities, 
and subject to our sufferings and death. The properties therefore 
of His human nature were not sunk nor absorbed in His Divine 
nature, any more than His Divine nature was altered or corrupted 
by His human nature. ; 

3. That these two natures, thus united in the one Person of 
Christ, shall “‘never be divided,” appears from the nature of the 
union, the object of that union, and the declaration of Scripture.} 
The nature of the union being that the Person of the Eternal Son 
took to Himself human nature, not a human person, it follows, 
that, if the two natures were divided at any time, either a new 
person would be brought into being, or else the human nature of 
Christ would utterly cease to exist. According to the latter sup- 
position, instead of being highly exalted and set above all His 
fellows, Christ’s human Body and Soul would be annihilated and 


1 One of the errors of the Photinians 
was that they believed the kingdom of 
Christ would wholly cease at the end of 
the world, and that the Word would be 
wholly resolved into the Father, and as a 
separate Person cease to exist. See Pear- 
son, Art. vi. p. 284, note. The only text 
which can appear even for a moment to 
favour the notion that Christ shall ever 
cease to be both perfect God and perfect 
Man, is the remarkable passage 1 Cor. xv. 
24, 28, where it is said that Christ shall 
deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and 
“the Son Himself shall be subject to Him 
that did put all things under Him, that 
God may be all in all.” We cannot, how- 


ever, from this infer, that the Son of God - 


shall leave His human nature and be ab- 
sorbed into the Person of the Father, and 
that then the human nature of Christ 
divested of the Divine shall be subject to 
God ; for, if no other passage in Scripture 


opposed that notion, this very passage 
would of itself refute it. It is the Son 
who is to be subject to the Father; but 
the human nature of Christ, separated (if 
that were possible) from His Divine na- 
ture, would not be the Son of God. ‘The 
true interpretation of the passage is, that 
the Son, who, in His human nature and 
touching His manhood, is inferior to the 
Father, yet now seated on the throne of 
His mediatorial kingdom, reigns supreme 
over men, angels, and devils. But at the 
end, when the need of that mediatorial 
reign has passed away, then the mediato- 
rial sceptre shall be laid down, Christ shall 
reign with God, upon His right hand; but 
as kar οἰκονομίαν, and in His human na- 
ture, He is inferior to the Father, so then 
He shall be subject to the Father; God 
shall be all in all. — See Pearson, On the 
Creed, Art. v1. p. 288. 


‘78 OF THE SON OF GOD. (Arr. IL 


perish. Surely neither of these hypotheses is tenable. Again, the 
end and purpose of the union, whereby the Son of God took the 
nature of man, being that He might join together God and men, 
Himself both God and man, and the necessity of such conjunction 
never ceasing, it follows that the union of the natures shall never 
cease. It is through the instrumentality of Christ’s humanity 
that man is united to God. When the union has been effected, 
we cannot suppose that the bond will be destroyed, the link anni- 
 hilated. It is by virtue of incorporation into Christ’s Body, that 
the saints shall rise and reign; and we cannot suppose that 
Christ’s Body shall cease to be one with the Son of God, when the 
saints, incorporated into It, reign because of It. 

And this farther appears from Scripture ; where we read, that 
* Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us”’ (Heb. vii. 25); that 
“« He is a Priest forever” (Heb. vi. 20; vii. 21, 24), “ consecrated for 
evermore” (Heb. vii. 28); that ‘“* He is set down at the right hand 
of God forever” (Heb. x. 12); that “* His kingdom is an everlast- 
ing kingdom, and that He shall reign for ever and ever” (Dan. ii. 
44; vii. 14,18, 27. Luke i. 82, 88. Rev. xi. 15). 


III. The Article, thirdly, asserts that the Son of God, having 
thus taken man’s nature, “ truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and 
buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only 
for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” 

To enter at full length into each portion of this clause of the 
Article, would necessarily exceed our present limits. The student 
may be referred to the Fourth Article of Pearson, On the Creed, 
for a most able exposition of the doctrine of Scripture concerning 
our Lord’s sufferings, crucifixion, death, and burial. 

1. To show the reality of our Lord’s sufferings and death, it 
is only necessary to read the last chapters of the four Gospels, 
which require no comment. If they did, such comment would be 
found in the prophecies of Christ’s sufferings (6. g. Ps. xxii. Isai. 
liii.), and in the letters and discourses of the Apostles on them 
(e. g. Acts ii. 22, 23; iii. 15; x. 39; xiii. 29. Rom. v. 10; vi. 8. 
1 Cor. xv. 16. 2 Cor. i. 5; iv. 10. Phil. ii, 8. Heb. ii. 9, 10; 
v. 7,8; ix. 17-28; x. 10; xii. 2; xiii, 12, 1 Pet. ii, 213 iii. 
18). The reality of the death, indeed, is a subject immediately 
connected with the reality of the human nature of Christ. The 
Docetw, who denied the one, naturally and necessarily denied the 
other. It was against them that St. John appears to have written 
many passages both in his Gospel and Epistles, as for example, 


Src. IL] OF THE SON OF GOD. 79 
John xix. 34, 85. 1 John iv. 3; v. 6. 2 John 7. Errors, 


against which the words of Scripture are specially directed, cannot 
lightly be disregarded by the Church. But as such errors are not 
likely to prevail extensively now, it may be unnecessary to dwell 
at length upon their refutation. 

2. One subject connected with the death and sufferings of 
our Saviour requires to be a little further considered. The Son ef 
God by taking on Him human nature became truly man; and one 
of the chief ends of His thus becoming man was, that He might 
die. But it may be asked still, Wherein did His death consist, 
and how did He suffer? Man dies, when His soul leaves his 
body. Man suffers, because his whole nature is passible. But 
Jesus Christ was man; yet not mere man. His Person consisted 
of the Eternal Son united toa human Body and a human Soul. 
How then did He suffer, and how die ? . 

He suffered in His human nature, which, being a_ perfect 
human nature, was capable of suffering both in Soul and Body. 
We may not imagine, as has already been shown, that His human 
nature ceased to be human nature when it was taken by His God- 
head ; “‘ that the properties of the weaker nature have vanished with 
the presence of the more glorious, and have been therein swallowed 
up as ina gulf.” It is true, then, that the Son of God suffered ; 
but not in the Godhead. His Godhead could no more suffer than 
the Godhead of the Father. But He took human nature, that He 
might suffer, and in His manhood the Son of God was crucified, 
and suffered and died. 

And His death consisted, not in the separation of His Divine 
Being from either Body or Soul. Then would not the Son of 
God have died at all. Then Christ would have been divided into 
two separate Persons, by the Godhead leaving the manhood; and 
the mystery and the blessing of the Incarnation would have been 
lost. The soul does not die by leaving the body, neither would 
the Son of God have died by leaving either Body or Soul. It was 
the Person of Christ that suffered death; and as that Person was 
invested with the nature of man, death was to Him what death is 
to other men, namely, the separation of the human soul from the 
human body. The union of the Godhead with the manhood was 
not disturbed ; but the human Soul of Christ left His human Body. 
But even when the Soul forsook the Body, the Godhead forsook 
neither Body, nor Soul.! “If it had, then could we not truly hold 


1 “Ὥστε οὐκ ἄνϑρωπος Θεοῦ ἐχωρίζετο, γεῖτο " οὔτε ἡ νέκρωσις ἀποχώρησις Θεοῦ, ἢ 
γ΄ οὔτε Θεὸς πρὸς ἄνϑρωπον ἐγκατάλειψιν διη. ἀπὸ σώματος ἦν μετάστασις, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς ἀπὸ 


80 OF THE SON OF GOD. 


either that the Person of Christ was buried, or that the Person of 
Christ did raise up itself from the dead. For the Body separated 
from the Word can in no true sense be termed the Person of 
Christ, nor is it true to say that the Son of God, in raising up that 
Body, did raise up Himself, if the Body were not both with Him 
and of Him, even during the time it lay in the sepulchre. The 
like is also to be said of the Soul; otherwise we are plainly and 
inevitably Nestorians. The very Person of Christ therefore, for- 
ever one and the self-same, was, only touching bodily substance, 
concluded within the grave ; His soul only from thence severed, but 
by personal union His Deity still inseparably joined with both.” 4 

3. The conclusion of the Article concerns the end and object 
of our blessed Saviour’s sufferings. 

The Socinians deny that there was any necessity for a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice, or that God had need to be reconciled to man. 
Man, say they, was at enmity with God, not God with man. Man 
therefore needed to be reconciled, and so Christ came to call men 
to repentance and to move them to it by His precept and example, 
and so committed to his disciples the ministry of reconciliation. 
But to say that God needed to have blood shed, and that the 
blood of an innocent and holy Victim, in order to appease His 
wrath, is to make God a vindictive and implacable Being, not a 
God of love. 

The answer to this is twofold. 

(1) “A God all mercy is a God unjust:” Justice is an attri- 
bute of God as well as mercy. Justice therefore calling for wrath 
on man, and the love of God calling for mercy, it was necessary, 
in order to reconcile both these attributes of God, that some means 
should be devised for satisfying both. We do not say that God 
was tied to the means which He ordained ; but we learn, that His 
wisdom ordained the sacrifice of His Son, and in that sacrifice we 
perceive a manifestation of infinite justice and infinite love. 


(Arr. IL 


in unam Personam, ut ne morte quidem 
ipsius separari potuerint. Quod igitur 

atri suo moriendo commendavit, id vere 
erat spiritus humanus a corpore ipsius 
egrediens ; at interim divina natura sem- 


σώματος χωρισμός. ---- Athanasius, De Salut. 
favor: Jesu Christ. Tom. 1. pp. 645, 
Compare the passage from Fulgentius 
uoted in the exposition of the next Ar- 


ticle: “Secundum Divinitatem suam, 
que nec loco tenetur, nee fine concludi- 
tur, totus fuit in sepulchro cum carne, 
totus in inferno cum anima.” — Fulgent. 
Ad Trasimund, Lib. 111. ch. 84. 
This is well expressed in some of the 
Calvinistic Confessions: e. g. Uonfessio 
ica, Art. x1x.: “ Caterum dum iste 
nature ita sunt simul unite et conjuncte 


per humane (etiam in sepulchro jacenti) 
conjuncta remansit: adeo ut Deitas ipsa 
non irinus in ipso tune fuerit, quam cum 
adhuc infans esset, etsi exiguum ad tem- 
pus non sese exerceret.”’ — Sylloge, p. 388. 

1 Hooker, vy. ir. 4. The whole sub- 
ject is admirably treated by Hooker ; 
and a Pearson, Art. tv. “ Suffered,’ 
“ ae 


Sec. IL] OF THE SON OF GOD. 81 


(2) But the same thing appears, too, from many passages in 
Scripture. There is some ambiguity in the words used in the 
new Testament for “ reconciliation.”” The most learned critics 
have observed, that those words are used in a somewhat different 
sense from that in which the classical authors use them. But it is 
quite clear from the contexts that in some passages God is spoken 
of as needing to be reconciled to man. For example, in 2 Cor. 
ν. 19, where it is said that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world 
unto Himself,” there might be some ambiguity, if it were not 
added, ‘not imputing their trespasses unto them;” but these words 
clear up the doubt. Indeed the whole context speaks as of two 
offended parties, God and man. God is represented as giving up 
His wrath and being reconciled through Christ, and then as send- 
ing to man, to invite him to give up his enmity and be reconciled 
to God.? 

That the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against sinful 
man seems hardly necessary to be proved. The Article on Orig- 
inal Sin is the more proper place for proving it. It may be 
sufficient now to refer to such passages as the following: Rom. 
v. 9. Eph. ii. 8. 1 Thess. i. 10. Heb. x. 26, 27. Rev. vi. 16, 17. 

The Jewish sacrifices were expressly appointed to deliver from 
the wrath of God2 The Passover was appointed, that the wrath 
of God might be averted, when the first-born of Egypt were slain. 
In the 4th and 5th chapters of Leviticus, directions are given for 
the mode in which those who have sinned shall make atonement 
for their transgression. Whether it were priest, prince, or people, 
they were to bring a victim, to confess the sin upon the head of 
the victim, and then slay it as a sin-offering. The same is observ- 
able of the offerings on the day of expiation; when the high- 
priest made atonement, first for himself, and then for the people; 
and also of the scape-goat, which was offered at the same time, the 
sins of the people being confessed on his head (Lev. xvi.) The 
Jews looked on these sacrifices as strictly propitiatory.2 The 
Gentiles, who imitated them, evidently had a similar notion of 


1 See, at length, Magee, On Atonement, 
1. p. 202, fifth edition, and the authors 
referred to there ; especially Hammond 
‘and Whitby on Rom, v.10, xi. 15; 2 Cor. 
v. 18, 19, 20; Ephes. ii. 16; and Col. i. 
20, 21. 

2 It is quite unnecessary to consider 
the question whether sacrifice was a rite 
in the first instance divinely instituted, 
‘or devised δ man. If the latter be, as 
some learned and pious authors have be- 

11 


lieved, the truth, still it sprang from ἃ 
natural feeling of guilt, and the need of 
atonement, and was sanctioned by Al 
mighty God and made a type of Christ, 
and rules were given for its observance, 
that the type might be more clear and 
express. The argument in the text there- 
fore would not be-invalidated, even if the 
divine institution of sacrifice be denied. 

3 Magee, as above, Illustrations, No. 
XXXKUI. 


82 OF THE SON OF GOD. (Arr. IL. 


their offerings; and those especially, who, in times of peculiar 
danger, had recourse to human sacrifice, appear to have enter- 
tained a strong feeling of the necessity of propitiating the gods with 
the noblest victims. That the legal sacrifices were types of the 
death of Christ, and therefore that Christ’s death was a propitiatory 
sacrifice for the sins of men, appears plainly from the fact that the 
terms taken from the Jewish sacrifices are applied in Scripture 
to describe the death of Christ. Thus He is said to have been 
“Jed as a lamb to the slaughter” (see Isai. liii. 5-8). He is 
called “the Lamb slain” (Rev. v. 6, 12; xiii. 8). ‘A Lamb with- 
out blemish and spot "Ὁ Pet. i. 19); “the Lamb of God which 
taketh away the sins of the werld” (John i. 29). St. Paul ex- 
pressly compares the priesthood of Aaron with the priesthood of 
Christ ; explaining to us that whereas the priest of old offered the 
blood of bulls and goats which could not take away sin, but availed 
only to a carnal purifying (Heb. ix. 13), so Christ offered, not 
the blood of others, but His own Blood — offered Himself to bear 
the sins of many ; and so put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 
As under the Law, without shedding of blood was no remission, and 
as the patterns of heavenly things were purified with the blood of 
sacrificed victims, so the heavenly things themselves were purified 
with better sacrifices, even Christ. (See Heb. ix. x.)? 

4, It may be well to observe one more expression, which occurs 
at the very end of the Article, namely, “to be a sacrifice, not only 
for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” It seems as 
if the reformers were anxious to meet a possible, perhaps an actual 
error, which, admitting the sacrifice of Christ for original sin, either 
denied remission to actual sins, or looked for pardon of them to 
something beside the propitiation offered on the cross. That actual, 
and not only original sin is pardoned for the sake of Christ, is 
taught repeatedly in the old Testament, as well as the new. 

Isaiah, besides saying that Christ ‘‘ was wounded for our trans- 
gressions, and bruised for our iniquities,” adds a passage expressly 
indicating actual sin: “* All we like sheep have gone astray, we 
lave turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on 
Him the iniquity of us all” (Isai. liii. 6). It is from ‘al iniquity” 
that “He gave Himself to redeem us” (Tit. ii. 14). It was when 
we were not only “alienated” by original guilt, but ‘ enemies 
through wicked works,” too, that Christ reconciled us (Col. i. 21). 
The persons whom the Apostle speaks of as not capable of being 


1 On the whole co αραλ τω consult Magee, the Jilustrations at the end of Vol. 1., and 
On Atonement and Vice; especially the authors there referred to. 


8κο. II] OF THE SON OF GOD. 88 


saved by the law, but “ justified freely by God’s grace through the 
redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” are described in the strongest 
terms as actual sinners (see Rom. iii. 12-26). And again (in 
1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11) he paints the characters of some who had 
been “‘justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,” as having been 
stained with the foulest vices and the deadliest sins. St. John (1 
John ii. 1, 2) distinctly assures us that ‘if any man sin we have 
an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He 
is the propitiation for our sins.” And that he meant actual sins is 
most apparent, because he begins the sentence with “ My little 
children, these things I write unto you that ye sin not.” 

We conclude, therefore, that the sacrifice of Christ, the Son of 
God, offered by Him upon the cross, whereon in His human 
nature He suffered and died, is a propitiation, not only for ae 
nal guilt, but also for actual sins of men. 


[The following passage is worthy of consideration in more aspects than one. It is 
from the pen of the Abbé Guettée. “ The existing Roman Church attacks [the doctrine 
of the Incarnation] indirectly, by the worship which it renders to the sacred heart of 
Jesus. In truth, worship is due only to the divine person of Jesus Christ; the human 
nature in Him shares in it only because of its hypostatical union with the divine 
nature. It is not permissible to offer worship to the human nature of Jesus Christ, 
in itself and separately considered, much less to a single organ of His body. The 
Roman Church excuses this worship by saying that it has relation to the person of 
Jesus Christ. But the greater part of its writers at this day teach, authoritatively, 
that the heart of Jesus is adorable by itself.” zp. de la Doctrine, p. 64.—J. W.] 


ARTICLE III. 


-----ὄ. 


Of the going down of Christ into Hell. De descensu Christi ad Inferos. 


As Christ died for us, and was buried; © Quemapmopum Christus pro nobis 
80 also it is to be believed that He went mortuus est, et sepultus, ita est etiam 
down into Hell. credendus ad inferos descendisse. 





Te the understanding of this Article it seems desirable to inves- 

tigate, historically and from Scripture, First, What is meant 
by “* Hell ;” Sxconpty, What is meant by Christ’s descending 
into hell; Tuirpity, What was the purpose or object of that de- 
scent. 

I propose, therefore, to depart from the arrangement adopted in 
the two former Articles, and to examine the meaning of the word 
“Hell,” first historically, and then scripturally,— and next to 
proceed in the same manner with the doctrine of our Lord’s de- 
scent into hell; and thirdly, with the reason or object of his 
going thither. 


First. The word “ Hell,” as used in the Article, is plainly 
borrowed from the Apostles’ Creed; for it appears that the first 
five Articles of the Church are little more than an amplification of 
the Articles of the Creed, intended to set forth, that the Church 
of England continued truly Catholic in its doctrines, whilst it was 
constrained to protest against the corruptions of some branches of 
the Church. In the Latin, the word used is either “ inferi” or 
““inferna.” The Greek corresponding to this was either τὰ 
κατώτατα or gdys; the former referring to Eph. iv. 9, the latter 
to Acts ii. 27. It has, however, generally been admitted, and may 
fairly be assumed, that the Greek word ἄδης is the word of Scrip- 
ture, which both the Creed and the Article render inferi and hell ; 
and it has been observed, that, according to their derivations, these 
words answer to one another. “Adys is something unseen, from 
dand εἶδον. Inferi is the Latin from the Greek word ἔνεροι or 
&Fepor, t. 6. those beneath the earth, the Manes or Spirits of the 


OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 85 


dead.! Heil is from the same root as hole and hellier (4. 6. a roofer, 
a coverer), and signifies the covered or hidden place, the Saxon 
root being helan, to cover. 

There is indeed another word in the new Testament often 
rendered in the English by hell. That word is yéevva; and some 
confusion arises from this indiscriminate translation. As, however, 
neither the Creeds nor the Church have been wont to use yéevva, 
to express the place to which our Lord went after His death, we 
may lay aside the consideration of the word at present; merely 
observing that it is the proper term in the new Testament for the 
state or place of damned souls and apostate spirits. 

As regards, then, the signification of the word Hades, it will be 
well to consider the subject : — 

I. Historically. 11. Scripturally. 


Art. IIL] 


I. The history may be divided into 

(1) The use of the word among the Greeks; (2) among the 
Jews; (8) among the Christians. 

1. It may be true that the Greeks sometimes used Hades to 
signify no more than the Grave; but if so, it was by an improper 
and less common use of the word. According to them, Hades, or 
the abode of Hades, was that place to which the Ghosts or Manes 
of the dead went after their burial. The unburied were detained 
on this side the Styx; the buried passed over, and mingled with 
the souls of men, which were there detained apart from the bodies 
they had left (εἴδωλα καμόντων). Hades himself was the deity who 
presided over these lower realms. In the abode of these disem- 
bodied souls were placed, on the one hand the happy fields of 
Elysium, on the other the gloomy realms of Tartarus. In the 
former, the souls of the virtuous enjoyed themselves, not however 
without regret for the loss of the body and the light of day. In 
the latter, the wicked, such as Ixion, Tantalus, the Danaids, and 
others, were tormented with various sorrows. This is known to 
every one who has read the Odyssey and the Aneid.? 


1 This seems a doubtful derivation. 
Infer, Infra, Inferus, Inferior, are obvi- 
ously all connected. Though this con- 
nection does not make the derivation 
given in the text impossible. ‘The Greek 


épa is the same as the Hebrew YS, in 
Chaldee and Syriac NUTS, in Arabic 
Ue)! The latter is the same as the 
German Erde, English earth. The Chal- 


dee and Syriac STN is, in sound as well 
as in its radical letters, the same as the 
Greek épa. And it is remarkable that it 
is used as a preposition to designate be- 
low, yas Infra. So 2 DI Infra te. 
This may account for the force of the 
preposition infra, on the hypothesis that 
the derivation given in the text is cor- 


rect. 
2 See Hom. Od. xt. Virg. An. v1 


OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. (Arr. IIL 


86 


2. The Jews in like manner believed in a state of being after 
death, in which the soul existed previously to the final Resurrec- 
tion, apart from the body, yet in a state of consciousness, either 
of happiness or of misery. This state or place they called in 
Hebrew, Sheol (isu), in Greek, Hades (aéys). Its position, 
according to their notions and language, was underground. Thus 
Josephus says that the soul of Samuel, when he appeared to Saul, 
came up (ἐξ ddov) from Hades.' He tells us that the Sadducees 
“took away the rewards and punishments of the Soul in Hades.” 3 
Whereas he says of the Pharisees, that “ they held the immortality 
of the Soul, and that men were punished or rewarded under the 
earth, according to their practice of virtue or wickedness in life.” 8 
Lightfoot has shown that the Jewish schools dispose of the souls 
of the righteous till the Resurrection, under the threefold phrase: 
(1) “the Garden of Eden,” answering to the “ Paradise” of the 
new Testament (Luke xxiii. 43). (2) ‘“ Under the throne of 
glory,” being nearly parallel with the expression (in Rev. vi. 9) of 
souls crying “under the altar;” for the Jews conceived the altar 
to be the throne of the Divine Majesty. (3) ‘In Abraham’s 
bosom,” which is the expression adopted by our Lord in the parable 
of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 22).4 He shows that the abode 
of the wicked before the Judgment is placed by the same Rabbins 
within sight of the abode of the just, and so that the one can con- 
verse with the other, as Dives is by our Lord represented as con- 
versng with Abraham.® From these, and similar authorities, we 
may conclude that the Jews, like the heathens, looked for a state 
immediately after death, which in their popular language was said 
to be under ground, and in their ordinary phraseology was called 


The latter describes the two sides of 
Hades thus : — 


Hic tg est partes ubi se via findit in am- 
as: 
Dextera, que Ditis magni sub meenia ten- 


i 
Hac iter Elysium nobis: at leva malorum 
Exercet poenas, et ad impia Tartara mittit. 


Ain. νι. 540-543. 

1 Joseph. Ant. Lib. vi. ὁ. xv. See 
Pearson, On the Creed, Art. v. p. 289. 

2 De Bell. Jud. Lib. 11. α. vii. Ψυχῆς 
τὲ τὴν διαμονὴν Kai τὸς Kaw ddov τιμωρίας 
καὶ ἀναιροῦσι. ---- Pearson, as above ; 
King, On the Creed, p. 189. 

8 Ant. Lib. xvitt. ον ii, ᾿Αϑάνατόν τε 
ἰσχὺν ταῖς ψυχαῖς πίστις αὐτοῖς εἶναι, καὶ 
ὑπὸ χϑονὸς δικαιώσεις τε καὶ τιμὰς οἷς 


ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας ἐπιτῆδευσις ἐν τῷ βίῳ γέγονε. 
—See Pearson and King, as above. 

4 See Lightfoot, Hore Hebraice on 
Luke xvi. 22; and Luke xxiii. 48. 

5 Hore Hebr. on Luke xvi. 23, 26. 
See also Bp. Bull, Works, 1. Disc. 111, 
p. 59. Bp. Bull, p. 61, quotes from the 
Chaldee Paraphrast on Cant. iv. 12, who, ἡ 
speaking of the Garden of Eden (that is 
Paradise), says that “ thereinto no man 
hath the power of entering but the just, 
whose souls are carried thither by the 
hands of angels.” “If this,” adds the 
learned writer, “had been an erroneous 
opinion of the Jews, doubtless our Sav- 
jour would never have given any the 
least countenance to it, much less would 
He have plainly confirmed it, by teach- 
ing the same thing in the parable of 
Dives and Lazarus.” 


Art. ΠΙ.1 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 87 


Sheol, Hades, Hell; that in this state were both the just and the 
unjust: the latter in a state of misery, the former in blissful enjoy- 
ment, called sometimes ‘ Paradise, the Garden of Eden,” some- 
times ‘‘ beneath the throne of glory,” sometimes “in Abraham’s 
bosom.” 

3. It is well known that the early Christians believed in an 
intermediate state of the soul between death and Judgment; and 
this intermediate state they, too, like the Jews, called “ Hades.” 
Justin Martyr, speaking against some of the Gnostics who denied 
the Resurrection, and by consequence the intermediate state of the 
soul, says, ‘‘ those who say that there is no Resurrection, but that 
immediately after death their souls are taken up to Heaven, these 
are not to be accounted either Christians or Jews.’ + He himself 
distinctly asserts that ‘‘no souls die (that would be a Godsend to 
the wicked); but the souls of good men remain in a better, of 
bad men in a worse place, awaiting the time of the Judgment.” 3 
Tertullian distinctly states his belief, that the souls of all men go to 
Hades (infert) until the Resurrection, the souls of the just being 
in that part of Hades called the bosom of Abraham, or Paradise.’ 
Irenzus says, that the souls of Christ’s disciples “go into the 
invisible place prepared for them, and there remain awaiting the 
Resurrection ; after which they shall receive their bodies again, 
and rise complete, that is, in the body, as the Lord arose, and so 
shall come to the vision of God.’ 4 

Origen declares his belief, that “ποὺ even the Apostles have 
received their perfect bliss; for the saints at their departure out of 
this life do not attain the full rewards of their labors; but are 


107 καὶ λέγουσι μὴ εἶναι νεκρῶν ἀνά- 
στασιν, ἀλλὰ oie τῷ ἀποϑνήσκειν τὰς ψυ- 
χὰς αὐτῶν ἀναλαμβάνεσϑαι εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, 
μὴ ὑπολάβητε αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς" ὥσπερ 
οὐδὲ ᾿Ιουδαίους. ---- Dial. p. 807, Paris, 
1615. That the still earlier apostolical 
fathers held the same sentiments con- 
cerning an intermediate state may be 
seen from Clem. 1 Corinth. c. 50. Herm. 
111. Simi/. 1x. 16. On the former pas- 
sage see Bull, Works, 1. Serm. 111. p. 68. 
Both his Sermons on this subject are de- 
serving of all attention. 

2° AAAG μὴν οὐδὲ ἀποϑνῆσκειν φημὶ πάσας 
τὰς ψυχὰς ἐγώ" ἕρμαιον γὰρ ἣν ὡς ἀληϑῶς 
τοῖς κακοῖς, ᾿Αλλὰ Ti; τὰς μὲν τῶν εὐσεβῶν 
ἐν κρείττονί ποι χώρῳ μένειν, τὰς δὲ ἀδίκους 
καὶ πονηρὰς ἐν χείρονι, τὸν τῆς κρίσεως ἐκ- 
δεχομένας χρόνον τότε. --- Dialog. p. 222. 

8 “ ΝΟΡΙ5 ἰηΐδυὶ non nuda cavositas, nec 
subdivalis aliqua mundi sentina credun- 
tur; sed in fossa terrv,et in alto vastitas, 


et in ipsis visceribus ejus abstrusa pro- 
funditas.” He then says, Christ went 
there, and his servants must not expect 
to be above their Lord, but will have to 
wait in Abraham’s bosom for the resur- 
rection. ‘ Nulli patet coelum, terra adhue 
salva, ne dixerim clausa. Cum transac- 
tione enim mundi reserabuntur regna 
celorum. .. . Habes etiam de Paradiso 
a nobis libellum, quo constituimus om- 
nem animam apud inferos sequestrari in 
gem Domini.” — Tertull. De Anima, cap. 


* Ai ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται εἰς τὸν [ἀόρατον] 
τόπον τὸν ὡρισμένον αὐταῖς ἀπὸ τοὺ Θεοῦ, 
κἀκεῖ μέχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως φοιτῶσι, περιμέ- 
vovoa τὴν ἀνάστασιν - ἔπειτα ἀπολαβοῦσαι 
τὰ σώματα, καὶ ὁλοκλήρως ἀναστᾶσαι, τουτ- 
ἔστι σωματικῶς, καϑὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀνέστη, 
οὕτως ἐλεύσονται εἰς τὴν ὄψιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. --- 
Trenz. v. 81. See also Beaven’s Ac- 
count of Ireneus, ch. XV111. 


88 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 


- awaiting us, who still remain on earth, loitering though we be, and 
slack.”’ } 

Lactantius is very express upon the same point. ‘ Let no one,” 
says he, “ think that souls are judged immediately after death; for 
they are all detained in the same common place of keeping, until 
the time come when the Supreme Judge shall inquire into their 
good or evil deeds.”’ 3 

Hilary says, that it is the “law of human necessity, that 
bodies should be buried, and souls descend to hell or Hades.”” And 
again, that ‘the faithful, who depart out of the body, are reserved 
in the safe keeping of the Lord for an entrance to the kingdom 
of Heaven, being in the mean time placed in Abraham’s bosom, 
whither the wicked cannot enter on account of the great gulf 
fixed between them, until the time comes when they shall enter 
into the kingdom of Heaven,” ὃ 

Ambrose still more fully says, that, “ while the fulness of time is 
expected, the souls await the reward which is in store for them. 
Some pain awaits, others glory. But in the mean time the former 


(Arr. IIL 


are not without trouble, nor are the latter without enjoyment.” 4 
Augustine writes, ‘* The time between death and final resurrec- 
tion holds the souls in hidden receptacles, according as each soul is 


meet for rest or punishment.” ® 


II. We have now to consider what we learn from Scripture of 
the state of the departed, and of the meaning of Hades. 
1. The soul, after it has left the body, is not represented as 


passing directly to its final reward. This will appear from 


following considerations : — 


the 


Our Lord distinctly assures us, that ‘no one hath ascended up 


1 “Nondum receperunt letitiam suam 
ne Apostoli quidem,sed et ipsi exspectant, 
ut et ego letitia eorum particeps fiam. 
Neque enim decedentes hine sancti con- 
tinuo integra meritorum suorum pre- 
mia consequuntur, sed exspectant etiam 
nos, licet morantes, licet desides.”’ — Ori- 
gen. Hom. vit. in Lev. num, ii. ; Usher’s 
Answer to a Jesuit, ch. v11. 

* “Nec tamen quisquam putet animas 
post mortem protinus judicari: omnes in 
una communique custodia detinentur, 
donec tempus adveniat quo maximus 
' Judex meritorum faciat examen.” — Lac- 
tant. /nstitut. Divin. Lib. vir. ο. 21; Usher, 
as above; King, p. 202. 

5 Humane ista lex necessitatis est, ut 
consepultis corporibus ad inferos anime 
descendant.” — Hilar. In Ps. exxxviii. 
Edit. Benedict. col. 614. 

“Futuri boni exspectatio est, cum exe- 


untes de corpore ad introitum illum reg- 
ni celestis per custodiam Domini fideles 
omnes reservabuntur, in sinu scilicet in- 
terim Abrahe collocati, qud adire impios 
interjectum chaos inhibet, qud usque in- 
troeundi rursum in regnum celorum 
tempus adveniat.”” — Hilar. Zn Ps. cxx. 
Edit. Benedict. col. 883. See Usher, and 
King, as above. 

4« Ergo dum exspectatur plenitudo tem- 
poris, exspectant anime remunerationem 
debitam. Alias manet peena, alias gloria: 
et tamen nec ille interim sine injuria, 
nec istx sine fructu sunt.’”’— Ambros. 
Bono Mortis, ec. x. Usher, as above. 

5“ Tempus, quod inter hominis mortem 
et ultimam resurrectionem interpositum 
est, animas abditis receptaculis continet, 
sicut unaqueeque digna est vel requie vel 
wrumna.” — Augustin. Δ πολ. ad Lau 
rent. ὁ. crx. Tom. v1. p. 236. 


OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 


Art. III] 89 


to Heaven but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of 
Man which is in Heaven” (John iii. 13). If then no one had 
then ascended up to Heaven, except the Lord Jesus, the saints 
departed could not have gone to their place of final and eternal 
bliss, which is always called Heaven. 

Again, our Lord promised the thief on the cross “that he should 
be with Him that day in Paradise” (Luke xxiii. 43). Now Christ 
did not go from the cross to Heaven, but, as will appea: hereafter, 
He went to hell or Hades, and did not go to Heaven till after His 
resurrection. Therefore Paradise, to which the thief went with 
Him that very day, was not Heaven.? 

Again, in the Revelation (vi. 9), “the souls of them that were 
slain for the word of God ” are not represented as in Heaven, but 
they ery from under the altar ; and, though white robes are given 
them, they are bid “to rest for a little season, till their fellow- 
servants and their brethren should be fulfilled.” 

Again, our Lord and His Apostles never comfort the Church 
concerning those who are asleep with the assurance that their 
souls are in Heaven, nor do they alarm the wicked with the fear 
that at the instant of death their souls will pass into a state of final 
punishment. It is ever to the Resurrection of the dead and the 
Judgment of the great day that the hopes of the pious and the 
fears of the ungodly are directed. This may be seen most plainly 
by referring to such passages as the following: Matt. xiii. 40; xvi. 
27 ; xxv. 81-33. Mark viii. 88. Luke xiv. 14. John v. 28, 29. 
Acts xvii. 851. 1 Cor. xv. passim. 2 Cor. iv. 14; v. 10, 11. 
Phil. iii. 20, 21. Col. 1. 4. 1 Thess. iv. 13-17; v. 2, 3, 23. 
2 Thess. i. 6-10. 2 Tim. iv. 1,8. Heb. ix. 27,28. Jas. v. 7, 8. 
1 Pet. iv. 5;v.4. 2 Pet. iii. 10-12. Rev. xx. 13-15. 

2. But though the soul does not receive its final reward until 
the Resurrection and the Judgment, when it shall be united to the 
body, and receive the sentence of the Judge; yet the soul does not 
die with the body, nor sleep in unconsciousness between death and 
Judgment.? This appears from the following. 


1 “Si ergo secundum hominem quem 
Verbum Deus suscepit, putamus dictum 
esse, Horie mecum eris in parud/sv, non ex 
his verbis in ceelo existimandus est esse 
paradisus : neque enim ipso’ die in colo 
futurus erat honio Christus Jesus ; sed in 
inferno secundum animam, in sepulchro 
autem secundum carnem.’’— August. 
Epist. tvi1. ad Dardanum. Edit. Bene- 
dict. Hp. ckxxxvui. Tom. 11. p. 679. 

2 The reformers of the ἀρὰ τ of Eng- 


land were so strongly of this opinion that 
they put forth the following in the reign 
of Edward VI., as one of the Articles of 
the Church: it is the 40th of the 42 
Articles of 1552:— 
The souls of them thot depart this life 
do Isao die with the bodies nor sleep 


“ They which say that the souls of 
such as depart hence do sleep, being 
without all sense, feeling, or perceiving, 


90 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Arrt. ΠΙ. 


The soul of Samuel returned to earth after his body was in the 
grave (1 Sam. xxviii. 11,14). This took place four years after 
Samuel’s death. In the parable or history in Luke xvi., both 
Lazarus and Dives are represented as alive, one in torments and 
the other in Abraham’s bosom; and that all this took place before 
the Resurrection and the Judgment appears from this, that in vv. 
27, 28, the brothers of the rich man were then alive on earth and 
in their state of probation, and Dives wished that Lazarus should 
be sent to them to bring them to repent. It is therefore quite 
clear that the present world was still in existence, and therefore 
Judgment yet future. The same observations apply in all partic- 
ulars to the account given of the souls beneath the altar, so often 
referred to in Rev. vi. 9-11. The promise also to the thief upon 
the cross, that he should be that day with Christ in Paradise 
(Luke xxiii. 43), must show that his soul would not be in a state 
of insensibility, but of bliss. 

The same may be inferred from the words of our Lord, “ Fear 
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul” 
(Matt. x. 28). If death be, not only corruption of the body, but 
insensibility of the soul, then men can kill the soul, as much as 
they can kill the body ; for they cannot kill the body eternally, nor 
prevent its rising again. They can kill the body and reduce it to 
corruption now; but the soul they cannot kill, neither now, nor 
ever. 

Again, the language used by our Lord and St. Stephen at the 
instant of death shows that the spirit would live: “ Father, into 
Thy hands I commend My Spirit,” said Christ (xxiii. 46). ‘ Lord 
Jesus, receive my spirit,” said Stephen (Acts vii. 59). 

St. Paul speaks of the Church as, among other companies, haying 
in it ‘the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. xii. 23) ; where 
the whole context shows that he refers to the present, not to the 
future state of Christian privilege and blessing. He declares of 
himself that he is in a strait between two, ‘having a desire to 
‘epart and to be with Christ, which is far better.” But if death 
be annihilation, until the Resurrection wakes both body and soul, 
he could hardly have called death better than life, nor have spoken 
of it as “ being with Christ ” (Phil. i, 23). And again, the same 
Apostle, speaking of death, and calling the body a tabernacle of 
the soul (2 Cor. v. 1, 2), says, ‘“* Whilst we are at home in the 


until the day of Judgment, or affirm that do utterly dissent from the right belief 
the souls die with the bodies, and at the declared to us in Holy Scripture.’ 
last day shall be raised up with the same, 


Art. ΠΙ.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 91 


body, we are absent from the Lord;” and then adds, “ we are 
willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with 
the Lord” (vv. 6-8). 

From all this we must conclude that the spirit still lives, when 
it has left the body, and that, though it loses the benefit of having 
a bodily tabernacle, yet, in the case of pious men, it is very vastly 
a gainer by death, inasmuch as, though absent from the body, it 
enjoys the presence of Christ. 

8. Having thus seen that the disembodied soul neither sleeps 
nor enters into its final reward, we have only farther to show that 
the soul is in an intermediate state, called Sheol or Hades; and 
that that state is a state of partial and expectant bliss to the right- 
eous, of partial and expectant misery to the wicked, preparatory 
to the final consummation of bliss or misery, to be assigned to each 
at the resurrection of the last day. 

It has been seen that this was the opinion of the Jews, and also 
that our Lord and the Apostles use the very expressions which 
Lightfoot has shown that the Jews used concerning the state 
of the departed, namely, “‘ Paradise,” ““ Abraham’s bosom,” and 
“beneath the altar,” answering to “ beneath the throne of glory.” - 
This would of itself imply that our Lord and His Apostles sanc- 
tioned the sentiments of the Jews upon the subject. The same 
has appeared concerning the Jewish use of the term Hades, which 
is a term frequently adopted by the writers of the new Testament. 

The various passages of Scripture already referred to fully con- 
firm this view of the case. For example, the souls beneath the 
altar (in Rev. vi.) are clothed in white robes, and comforted with 
hope, but plainly not in perfect consummation and bliss. St. 
Paul (in 2 Cor. v. 1-8), when looking forward to the hope of res- 
urrection, distinctly describes the state of the disembodied soul as 
imperfect ; and though he says, it is ‘ better to be absent from the 
body, and present with the Lord” (ver. 8), he still says, that our 
earnest desire is for the resurrection of the body, which he calls 
being “clothed upon” (ver. 4). Again (Rom. viii. 19-23), he 
represents the whole creation as longing to be delivered from bond- 
age, and waiting for the redemption of the body. In Heb. xi. 40 
he represents the saints departed as not “‘ made perfect,” until 
those who should succeed them were added to the number of the 
redeemed. : 

To these passages we must add the promise to the thief upon 
the cross, that he should be in Paradise, a place evidently of bliss, 
yet, as has already been seen, not the same as Heaven. Lazarus 


92 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL (Arr. IIL 


is spoken of as comforted in Abraham’s bosom; an expression by 
no means answering to the glowing descriptions of the eternal 
Kingdom of God, though corresponding with the Jewish and early 
Christian ideas of the state of intermediate bliss. Dives, too, is 
represented as being in the. same place with Lazarus, though sepa- 
rated by a great gulf from him, and, unlike him, suffering tor- 
ment ; and that place is expressly called Hades (Luke xvi. 23). 
In correspondence with all this, we find, in the old Testament, 
that Jacob expected “ to go down to Sheol (ὦ. 6. Hades) unto his 
son”? (Gen. xxxvii. 835). Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are said 
to go down “quick into Sheol” (Num. xvi. 30); and when the 
king of Babylon’s fate is foretold by Isaiah, it is said that “ Hades 
(or Sheol) from beneath shall be moved to meet him;” which is 
explained by what follows, that the ‘mighty dead shall be stirred 
up” at his approach (Isai. xiv.) I think it hardly necessary to 
add more to show that on this point the opinion of the ancients is 
more correct than that of the modern popular creeds; and that 
the Roman Catholic notions of purgatory, the common opinion 
that the soul at once passes to its final reward, and the belief that 
the soul sleeps from death to Judgment, are all without support 
from the Scriptures of God. Those Scriptures plainly speak of the 
final reward to be attained only at the Resurrection; yet they 
show, too, that the soul is in a state of consciousness between death 
and Judgment. That state of consciousness is evidently a happy, 
though not a perfect state to the good, a suffering, though not a 
fully miserable state to the wicked. ‘This state also is called at 
times by various names; but its general designation, whether as 
regards the just or the unjust, is in the Hebrew Sheol, in the Greek 
Hades, and both these words (as well as others of a different sig- 
nification) are generally rendered by our English translators hell. 


Our Sxconp consideration is, What is meant by our Lord’s 
descent to hell, — and what authority there is for the’ doctrine. 


I. Historically. 

Te article, “He descended into hell,” was not very anciently 
in the Creeds. The first place we find it used in, was the church 
of Aquileia,! about a.p. 400. Yet it is contained in a sort of 
exposition of the Christian faith given by Eusebius, which he trans- 
lated from the Syriac, and which he states to have been given by 
Thaddwus, the brother of the Apostle Thomas, to the people of 


1 Pearson, p. 226. 


Art. IIL] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 93 


Edessa! It is not, however, in the Creeds of Irenzus, Origen, 
Tertullian, Cyprian, in the Creed of the Council of Nice, nor in 
the more ancient draughts of the Roman or Apostles’ Creed. 
Still there can be no question of its very general acceptance, as an 
article of faith, by all the earlier fathers of the Church. Ignatius, 
Hermas, Justin M., Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, 
Origen, Cyprian, have all spoken clearly on this subject; besides 
later fathers, such as Cyril, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chry- 
sostom. It will be necessary to refer more particularly to the sen- 
timents of some of these fathers, when we come to our THIRD 
division, concerning the object of Christ’s descent. At present 
let it suffice to quote a few of the more striking, as well as the 
best-known passages, from some of the earliest Christian writers. 
Irenzeus says, that ‘our Lord was in the middle of the shadow of 
death, where are the souls of the dead, and after that rose again 
with His body.”* Tertullian, in a chapter before quoted, says 
that ‘‘ Christ, who is God, yet being man too, died according to the 
Scriptures, was buried, and went through the form of human death 
in Hades ; nor did He ascend into Heaven till He had gone down 
to the lower parts of the earth.” Cyprian shows that our Lord 
‘was not to be overcome by death, nor to remain in hell.” 4 Lord 
King says that in sundry places Athanasius shows,’ ‘that, whilst 
Christ’s Body lay buried in the grave, His Soul went into hell, to 
perform in that place those several actions, and operations, which 
were necessary for the complete redemption and salvation of man- 
kind ; that He performed after His death different actions by His 
two essential parts: by His Body He lay in the grave, by His 
Soul He went into hell and vanquished death.” 

One principal reason why the fathers laid great stress on the 
belief in Christ’s descent to Hades was this. The Arians and 


1 Kuseb. 1. 18; Bingham, x. 4, 18; 
Hey, Bk. 1v. Art. 111. ὃ 1; Hammond’s 
Pract. Catech. Bk. v. § 2. 

2 Trenz. v. 81. ‘ Cum enim Dominus 
in medio umbre mortis abierit, ubi anime 
mortuorum erant, post deinde corporal- 
iter resurrexit.”—See Pearson, p. 287; 
and Beaven’s Account of Ireneus, ch. 
XVIII. 

8 De Anima, 6. ty. ‘ Quod si Christus 
Deus, quia et homo, mortuus secundum 
Scripturas, et sepultus secundum easdem, 
hie quoque legi satisfecit, forma humane 
mortis apud inferos funetus, nec ante 
ascendit in sublimiora colorum, quam 
descendit in inferiora terrarum,” &c. 

* “ Quod a morte non vinceretur, nec 


apud inferos remansurus esset.” — Cyp. 
Test. adv. Jude. lib. 2. c. 24. 

5 King, p. 179. The words are Lord 
King’s, not Athanasius’s. Nevertheless, 
Athanasius’s language may justify Lord 
King’s statement: . . . pare τῆς ϑεύτητος 
τοῦ σώματος ἐν τῷ τάφῳ ἀπολιμπανομένης, 
μῆτε τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν τῷ Gdn χωριζομένης. 
Τοῦτο γὰρ ἔτι τὸ ῥηθὲν du τῶν προφητῶν " 
Οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχῆν μου εἰς ἅδην, 
οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφϑορών. 
εὐνν͵ Διὼ τοῦτο ἐν μὲν ψυχῇ Θεοῦ ἡ κράτησις 
τοῦ ϑανάτου ἐλύετο, καὶ ἐξ ddov ἀνάστασις 
ἐγίνετο, καὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς εὐηγγελίζετο" ἐν δὲ 
σώματι Χριστοῦ ἡ φϑορὰ κατηργεῖτο, κ. τ. A. 
-—~ Athanas. De Salut, Advent, Jes. Christ. 
εἰ adv. Apollinarium. Tom, 1. p. 645. 


94 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 


Apollinarians denied the existence of a natural human soul in 
Jesus Christ.1_ Now the true doctrine of our Lord’s humanity, 
namely, that “‘He was perfect man, of a reasonable soul and hu- 
man flesh subsisting,” was most strongly maintained by asserting 
the Article of His descent to Hades. For whereas His Body was 
laid in the grave, and His Soul went down to Hades, He must 
have had both Body and Soul.2 Accordingly, the fathers with one 
consent maintain the descent of Christ’s Soul to Hell. 


(Arr. ΠΙ. 


II. The Scriptural proof of our Lord’s descent to Hades rests 
chiefly on three passages. One is the difficult verse, 1 Pet. iii. 19, 
which was generally esteemed by the fathers to apply to this sub- 
ject, and was thought conclusive by the reformers of the reign of 
Edward VI. Yet, as many of our most learned divines have denied 
its application, I shall defer the consideration of the question till 
we come to speak of the olyect of Christ’s descent. 

Another passage is Eph. iv. 9: ‘“* Now that He ascended, what 
is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the 
earth ?” 

It is undoubted, that both Jews and Greeks placed Hades, 
according to their popular notions, beneath the earth, or in the 
lower parts of the earth; and it is not improbable that the Apostle 
may have used this popular language to express our Lord’s descent 
or passage to the place of disembodied souls. It is undoubted, too, 
that some of the fathers and creeds adopted these words, or words 
similar to them (τὰ xarérepa),® to express the doctrine of the de- 
scent to Hades. And Bishop Pearson has truly observed, that this 
exposition of the passage ‘must be confessed so probable that there 
can be no argument to disprove it.”” Yet there is also no question, 
that the Apostle’s language might be used to express merely the 
fact of the incarnation, or of the burial of Christ. The “ lower 
parts of the earth” may mean only the place beneath, te. the 
earth itself, in contradistinction to the heights of Heaven. 

Although, then, both these passages may, and we may not be far 


1 See an account of their doctrines un- 
der Art. rr. § 1. 

Ὁ Most pertinent is the sage of 
Fulgentius, Ad Trasimund. Lib. 111. c. 84, 
quoted by Pearson, p. 288: ‘“ Humanitas 
vera Filii Dei nec tota in sepulchro fuit, 
nec tota in inferno; sed in sepulchro se- 
cundum veram carnem Christus mortuus 

acuit, et secundum animam ad infernum 

tus descendit :. . . secundum divini- 
tatem vero suam, que nec loco tenetur, 
nec fine concluditur, totus fuit in sepul- 


chro cum carne, totus in inferno cum an- 
ima ; ac per hoc plenus fuit ubique Chris- 
tus, quia non est Deus ab humanitate 
quam susceperat separatus,” &c. 

So Hilary, Jn Ps. cxxxviii. “ Quam 
descensionem Dominus ad consummatio- 
nem veri hominis non recusavit.” 

8 See Pearson, pp. 226, 228. Irenwus, 
Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, all quote 
this to prove or express the de- 
scent into hell. 


Art. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 95 


wrong in saying that they both very probably do, refer to our 
Lord’s descent to the place or state of departed souls; yet, seeing 
this application is open to doubt, it may be well to rest the doc- 
trine on a passage the force of which can hardly be evaded. The 
passage is Acts ii, 27-31. St. Peter there quotes the sixteenth 
Psalm, “ Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades (εἰς g8ov), neither 
wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption ;” and he ex- 
plains it, that the Psalmist “‘spake of the resurrection of Christ, 
that His Soul was not left in Hades, neither His Flesh did see 
corruption.” } In which explanation by the Apostle it is plain that 
the soul is in antithesis to the flesh, and Hades to corruption ; so 
that the miracle of our Lord’s resurrection was the consequence of 
His Flesh not being suffered to be corrupted in the grave, and His 
Soul not being suffered to remain in Hades. That is to say, our 
Lord had a human nature like our own. When human beings die, 
the soul leaves the body; the latter is laid in the grave, the former 
passes to the intermediate state of souls. With ordinary men, the 
body sees corruption, the soul is left in Hades till the Judgment. 
But with Christ, though He fully passed into the state of death, 
yet death did not retain dominion over Him. Although, therefore, 
His Body was laid in the sepulchre, it saw not corruption; al- 
though His Soul went to Hades, where other souls go, yet God did 
not leave it there, but it was on the third day reunited to the 
Body, and so the Body was raised from the grave. 

If it be necessary to add anything to this passage, we may 
further remark, that, as it has already been shown that Paradise is 
the state of the departed souls of the redeemed, so our Lord’s 
promise to the thief upon the cross, that he should be with Him 
that day in Paradise, proves clearly that our Lord, and with Him 
the repentant thief, passed from the cross into the state of the 
souls of the dead, which, as has been shown, is called Hades or 
hell. It was, indeed, into the happy division of Hades called Para- 
dise, or Abraham’s bosom ; but still it was to part of Hades.? 


We now come to the Turrp division of our subject, to consider 
what was the object:of: our Lord’s descent to Hades. 


1“ Et Dominum quidem carne mortifi- 
catum venisse in infernum satis constat. 
Neque enim contradici potest vel pro- 
phetize que dixit, Quoniam non derelinques 
animam meam in inferno; quod ne aliter 
quisquam sapere auderet, in Actibus 
Apostolorum idem Petrus exponit.” — 
Augustin. Hpist. orxx1v. Tom. 11. p. 574. 


2 So the author of the Homily on Dives 
and Lazarus, attributed to Chrysostom : 
 Dicat mihi aliquis, in inferno est Para- 
disus ? Ego hoc dico, quia sinus Abrahe 
Paradisi veritas est; sed et sanctissimum 
Paradisum fateor.”’ — Homil. in Luc. xvi. 
De Divite, Tom. 1. Oper. Chrysost. Latin. 
Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. ὙΙΙΙ, 


96 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Arr. IL 


I. Historically, we must consider this subject as briefly as 
we can. 

1. It has already been seen, that many of the fathers looked 
on the belief in our Lord’s passage to Hades as necessary for the 
acknowledgment of the verity of His manhood and of His death. 
This indeed appears to have been the universal sentiment of the 
primitive Church; and, accordingly, the descent to Hades was 
urged by the fathers against the Apollinarian heresy. 

2. But, though this may be said to have been the universal 
sentiment of the early Christians, there were also various opinions 
current among them, as to what our Lord did during His stay 
among the souls of the dead. 

Almost universal appears to have been the belief, that the Spirit 
or Soul of Christ preached the Gospel to the souls of the dead? 
Hermias, who is reckoned apostolical, has set forth the doctrine, 
that: not only Christ preached to the spirits in Hades, but that 
the Apostles too preached, to those who had died before them, 
the name of the Son of God.* In this he is followed and quoted 
by Clement of Alexandria.‘ 

Trenzus, again, says that he heard from a certain presbyter, 
who heard it from those who had seen the Apostles, that our Lord 
descended to the places beneath the earth, and preached His 
Gospel to those who were there; and all believed in Him who 
had foretold His advent, —the just, the prophets, the patriarchs ; 
whose sins He forgave, as He does ours.5 

The passage of Scripture on which this general belief of the 
early Christians was founded is 1 Pet. iii. 19. Justin Martyr and 
Ireneus also quote a passage from Isaiah or Jeremiah, which is 
not extant in any copies of the Bible. The passage is this, ‘The 
Lord God remembered His dead, who slept in the sepulchral earth, 
and descended to them to preach His salvation.”® Justin charges 
the Jews with having erased it from the LXX. Of the spurious- 
ness of the text there can be no doubt; but it sufticiently shows 
the judgment of those fathers who quoted it, concerning the doc- 
trine which it was adduced to prove. 

Thus far then the early Christians appear almost unanimous. 


1 See under the second division of this ὃ Lib. 111. Simil. 1x. c. xvr. Coteler. 1. 
Article passages from Irenwus, Tertul- p. 117. 
lian, Athanasius, Fulgentius. See also “ Stromat. vi. Potter, pp. 768, 764. 
Pearson, p. 238. See Bp. Kaye’s Clement of Alexandria, 
5 Καϑικόμενος ἐν τοῖς κατωτάτοις τοῦ ἄδου p, 189. 
μυχοῖς, καὶ διακηρύξας τοῖς ἐκεῖσε πνεῖΐ; . δ Tren. Lib. rv. c. 45. 
— Cyril. Alex. Hom, Paschal. xx. Usher, 6 Justin. M. Dial. § 72, p. 898. Iren. 
' Answer to a Jesuit, ch. vin. / ΤΣ, 23. ιν. 80. v. 8]. 


Arr. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. ΟἿ 


On the purpose or end of Christ’s preaching, however, there ex- 
isted no small difference. 

(1) The earlier fathers seem generally to have held, that no 
change took place in the condition of souls after our Lord’s descent 
among them, and in consequence of His preaching to them. Jus- 
tin Martyr held, that all souls still remain in Hades: the just-in a 
happy, the unjust in a wretched place, and so shall remain to the 
Judgment.! Irenzus:and Tertullian are clearly of the same opin- 
ion.. The former says,? that “no disciple is above his master,” 
and thence infers that, as our Lord went to Hades, so all His 
servants shall go thither. Tertullian asserts that “‘ Heaven is not 
open until the end of the world,” ® and that all men are in Hades, 
either comforted or tormented. Accordingly, he says that our 
Lord’s descent to Hades was, that the patriarchs might be made 
partakers of Him.® 

(2) But, on the other hand, many of the early Christians 
were of opinion that our Lord, when He descended to Hades, 
delivered some who were there, and carried them thence to some 
better place. 

Some thought that the prophets and patriarchs were in Hades 
till the coming of Christ, and that after that they were translated 
to a better place, called Paradise ; whilst others again believed 
that our Lord preached His Gospel to the souls of the dead, and 
that those who believed in Him were saved and delivered from 
Hades, those who rejected Him were condemned. 

There seem traces of this opinion in the above-noticed passage 
of Hermas, commonly called an apostolical father, and in Clement 
of Alexandria, who followed him. Origen, however, appears to be 
the first who distinctly propounded the opinion, that, after the 
coming of Christ, the souls of the just, instead of going to Hades, 
pass at once to some better place, called Paradise.® 


1 See the passages quoted in the note tinere debemus definitum a Deo resurrec- 


under the First head, τ. 3, p. 87, note 1. 
2 «Nunc autem [Dominus] tribus die- 
bus conversatus est ubi erant mortui... 
Cum enim Dominus in medio umbre mortis 
abierit, ubi anime mortuorum erant,.. . 
manifestum est quia et discipulorum ejus, 
propter quos et hze operatus est’ Domi- 
nus, αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται εἰς eM Ne ed 
τόπον τὸν ὡρισμένον αὐταῖς... 
est discipulus super magistrum : perfectus au- 
tem omnis erit sicut magister ejus. Quomodo 
ergo magister noster non statim evolans 
abiit, sed sustinens definitum a Patre re- 
surrectionis suz tempus, ... posttriduum 
resurgens assumptus est; sic et nos sus- 


13 


. Nemo enim ἡ 


tionis nostre tempus, prenuntiatum a pro- 
phetis, et sic resurgentes assumi.” — Ire- 
ne. v. 31. 

3 De Anima, c. tv., quoted above. 

* De Anima, ὁ. LVIII. 

5 “ Descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut 
illic patriarchas et prophetas compotes sui 
faceret.”” — De Anima, c. LY. 

See also Adv. Marcion. Lib. Iv. c. 
xxxtv. Also Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, Ὁ. 262. 

ὁ This is apparent, as the opinion of 
Origen, in the whole of the 2d Homily 
on the Ist Book of Kings, known as the 
Homily De Engastriinytho. There he 
argues that the soul of Samuel, which 


OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 


98 (Arr. ΠῚ. 


Accordingly, the later fathers generally adopted the notion, that, 
till Christ’s death, the patriarchs and prophets were in Hades, but 
afterwards (from the time that Christ promised to the thief on the 
eross that he should be with Him in Paradise) they passed into 
Paradise, which therefore they distinguished from Hades.! Hades 
indeed they looked on as a place of rest to the just, but Paradise 
as far better.’ 

Here, of course, we begin to perceive the germ of the doctrine 
of the Limbus Patrum. Yet that the notion entertained by the 
fathers was vastly different from that of the medieval Church, 
will be sufficiently apparent to any one who will read the pas- 
sages which have been thrown into the notes. 

Another opinion, however, grew up also in the early ages, 
namely, that Christ not only translated the pious from Hades to 
more joyous abodes, but that even some of those who in old times 
had been disobedient, yet, on hearing Christ’s preaching, believed, 


and so were saved and delivered from torment and hell.® 


was called up by the witch of Endor, was 
in Hades ; so were the souls of Abraham, 
Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets; none of 
them could pass the flaming sword, till 
Christ came to set them free. Therefore 
it was that Lazarus, though in Abraham’s 
bosom, could see Dives, who was in tor- 
ments. But after Christ is come. Chris- 
tians can pass the flaming sword into 
| Paradise without harm. Paradise, how- 
ever, was not in Heaven, according to 
Origen, but still an intermediate state, 
though better than Hades. ‘This appears 
from the following, if Rufinus has rightly 
translated him: “‘ Puto enim quod sancti 
quique discedentes de hac vita permane- 
bunt in loco aliquo in terra posito, quem 
Paradisum dicit Scriptura divina, velut in 
quodam eruditionis loco, et, ut ita dix- 
-erim, auditorio vel schola animarum, in 
quo de omnibus his que in terris viderant 
oceantur, indicia quoque quedam acci- 
piant etiam de consequentibus et futu- 
ris,” &e.— De Principiis, Lib. 11. cap. ΧΙ. 
num. 6. 
Bp. Beveridge, on this Article, quotes 
a passage from Ignatius, which should 
show that that ancient father took the 
same view as Origen and others after 
him. The passage, however, is from an 
interpolated Epistle, and therefore proves 
nothing. Ad 7va//, 1x. Coteler, 11. p. 64. 
1 “ Dominus resurrectionis sux pignore 


vineula solvit inferni, et piorum animas , 


elevavit.”,-—Ambros, De Fide ad Gratian. 
Lib. rv. ο. 1. 

_“ Ante adventum Christi omnia ad in- 
feros pariter ducerentur. Unde et Jacob 
ad inferos descensurum se dicit. Et Job 


This 


pios et impios in inferno queritur reten- 
tari. Et Evangelium, chaos magnum inter- 
ositum apud interos, et Abraham cum 
aro, et divitem in suppliciis, esse tes- 
tatur. Et revera antequam flammeam il- 
lam rotam, et igneam romphwam, et Pa 
radisi fores Christus cum latrone resera- 
ret, clausa erant celestia.’’—Hieron. Com. 
in Ecrles. c.\111. Tom. 11. col. 786. Edit. 
Bened. Quoted in part by King, p. 209 
See also Pearson, p. 250. 

2“ Si enim non absurde credi videtar, 
antiquos etiam sanctos, qui venturi Chris- 
ti tenuerunt fidem, locis quidem a tor- 
mentis impiorum remotissimis, sed apud 
inferos fuisse, donec cos inde sanguis 
Christi et ad ca loca descensus erueret, 
profecto deinceps boni fideles effuso illo 
pretio jam redempti, prorsus inferos ne 
sciunt, donee etiam receptis corporibus, 
bona recipiant que merentur.”’ — August. 
De Civit. Dei, Lib. xx. ο. xv. Tom. vit. 
Ρ. 5938. Quoted in part by King, p. 212. 
See also A/pist. ctxiv. Tom. 11. p. 575; 
Epist. cLxxxxvui. p. 679, 

3“ Expers peccati Christus, cum ad 
Tartari ima descenderet, seras inferni 
januasque confringens, yinctas peceato 
animas, mortis dominatione destructa, e 
diaboli faucibus revocavit ad vitam.” — 
Ambros. De Mysterio Pasche, ς. 4. 

« Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. 

ui ad fornacem descendit inferni, in quo 
i Sl et peccatorum et justorum anime 
tenebantur, ut absque exustione et noxa 
sui eos, qui tenebantur inclusi, mortis 
vineulis liberaret.” — Hieron, Zn Ἷ 
ο. iii. Tom. 111. col. 1086. ¥ 
““Invocavit ergo redemptor noster no- 


Arr. IIL] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 99 


appears to have been the opinion of Augustine. He was evidently 
puzzled as to the meaning of the word Hades, and doubted 
whether it ever meant a place of rest and happiness (although at 
times he appears to have admitted that it did); and thinking it 
a place of torment, he thought Christ went thither to save some 
souls, which were in torment, from thence.1 Some indeed went 
so far as to think that hell was cleared of all the souls that were 
there in torment, and that all were taken up with Christ, when 
He arose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven. But this was 
reckoned as a heresy.” 

Such were the principal varieties of opinion in early ages touch- 
ing the end of Christ’s descent to hell.® 

In more modern times, many other sentiments have been 
adopted. Among the rest, the opinion held by Calvin* appears to 
have been, that our Lord’s descent to hell means not His going to 
the place of spirits, but His suffering upon earth, in Gethsemane and 
on the cross, all the torments of hell, and the sufferings of damned 
souls. Dr. Hey thinks that the growing popularity of Calvin’s 
views induced the reformers of Elizabeth’s reign to omit the latter 
part of the Third Article as put forth in Edward’s reign, because it 
was not acceptable to those who followed Calvin on this head. 

Others again have supposed that our Lord went down to hell, 
(taking hell in the sense of Gehenna, the place of the damned,) 
and that He went there in order to meet and confront Satan in 
his own abode, and as He had conquered him on earth, so finally 
to subdue him in hell. 


men Domini de lacu novissimo, cum in 
virtute divinitatis descendit ad inferos, 
et destructis claustris Tartari, suos quos 
ibi reperit eruens, victor ad superos as- 
cendit.”’ —Id. Lib. 11. Jn Lamentat. c. iii. 
Tom. v. col. 829. The genuineness of 
this commentary is doubtful. 

‘Nec ipsam tamen rerum partem nos- 
ter salvator mortuus pro nobis visitare 
contempsit, ut inde solveret quos esse 
solvendos secundum divinam secretam- 
que justitiam ignorare non potuit.” — 
Augustin. De Genesi ad literam. Lib. x11. 
e. 66. Tom. 11. p. 322. 

Κατελϑὼν γὰρ εἰς ddov, καὶ τοῖς ἐκεῖσε 
διακηρύξας πνεύμασιν, avei¢ τε τοῖς κάτω τὰς 
wap το πύλας, καὶ τὸν ἄπληστον τοῦ 

avarov κενώσας μυχὸν, ἀνεβίω τριήμερος. 
— Cyril. Alex. Hom. Paschal. i 

σεσύλητο τῶν πνευμάτων ὁ ἄδης. --- Id. 
Hom. v1. 

See most of these and some other pas- 
sages referred to in Usher’s Answer toa 
Jesuit, ch. vir. 


1See Augustin. Epist. crxrv. Tom. 
11. p. 573. Pearson, p. 241, refers to it 
as /pist. xc1x. Concerning Augustine’s 
doubts on the nature of Hades, see Pear- 
son, p. 229; King, p. 210; and the places 
referred to supra note 3, pp. 124, 5. 

2 Augustine, in his book De Heresibus, 
reckons this as the seventy-ninth heresy. 
‘* Alia, descendente ad inferos Christo, 
credidisse incredulos, et omnes exinde ex- 
istimat liberatos.”’”— Tom. vu. p. 28. 
See Pearson, p. 241, note. 

8 Tertullian mentions, but does not 
approve of, an opinion in his day, that 
Christ went to Hades that we should not 
go thither: “ Sed in hoe, inquiunt, Chris- 
tus inferos adiit, ne nos adiremus.”’ — De 
Anima, ce. 55. 

*See Calvin. Institut. Lib. 1. c. 16, 
§ 10: quoted by Pearson, p. 230, where 
see Pearson’s own observations on this 
notion. 

5QOn the other hand, Mede (Disc. ἔν. 
Works, p. 23, Lond. 1677) has made it 


100 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 


II. To pass from the Historical to the Scriptural consideration 
of the end of Christ’s descent to Hades, we may observe : — 

1. That it is plain He went thither that He might fulfil the 
conditions of death proper to human nature. When man dies, 
the spirit leaves the body, the body is buried, the spirit goes to 
the abode of the departed, where the souls of men await the Resur- 
rection of the dead. Christ fulfilled this twofold condition. His 
Body was buried, and His Soul passed into Hades or Paradise. 
This it is unnecessary to dwell upon, as it seems evident, that, as 
our Lord was perfect man, so it was His will, and the will of 
His Father, that He should undergo all the conditions of human 
nature, and especially that He should truly suffer death. Now 
death cannot be truly suffered, unless the soul leaves the body, and 
goes to the abode of departed spirits. 

2. But it becomes necessary here to consider, whether the 
text 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, (which was so applied by all the fathers, and 
by the English reformers of the reign of Edward the Sixth,) gives 
us any farther account of the end and object of Christ’s descent 
to Hades. Many divines of the English Church deny altogether 
its applicability to this question. Writers of no less name than 
Hammond, Pearson, Barrow, &c. contend that the only meaning 
of St. Peter’s words is, that our Lord by His Holy Spirit, inspiring 
Noah, preached to the disobedient antediluvians, who are now for 
their disobedience imprisoned in hell. 

This interpretation of the passage depends on the accuracy of 
the English version. That version reads in the eighteenth verse 
“‘ gquickened by the Spirit.” It is to be noted, however, that all the 
ancient versions except one (the Ethiopic) seem to have understood 
it “* quickened in spirit ; and it is scarcely possible, upon any cor- 
rect principles of interpretation, to give any other translation to the 
words.” If, therefore, we follow the original, in preference to the 


(Arr. TIL 


most probable, if not certain, that Satan 
is not yet cast into hell, but that evil 
spirits are allowed to walk to and fro on 
the earth. So Satan is called the prince 
of the powers of the air, and it is not till 
the Judgment that he is to be cast into 
hell. This, like most of J. Mede’s learned 
discourses, is well worth reading. 

See also this view of the end and char- 
acter of our Lord’s descent into hell 
non may ΤῊ and disproved by Bp. Pear- 


aon, p. 248. 
1 K question as to whether this might 
be the meaning of the passage had been 


proposed by St. Jerome a 
tine. Hieron. Lib. xv. Jn Esai. cap. liv. 


St. Augus- ματι 


August. Epist. cuxiv. See Usher’s An- 
swer to a Jesuit, ch. V111. 

2 The words in the Greek are ϑανατω- 
Belo μὲν σαρκὶ, ζωοποιηϑεὶς δὲ τῷ πνεύ- 
ματι. The article τῷ before πνεύματι is 
of so little authority, that Wetstein, Gries- 
bach, and Matthiii have rejected it from 
the text. Bishop Middleton has observed, 
that in order to admit of the rendering 
of the English version, or to allow us to 
understand by “‘spirit”’ here the Holy 
Spirit of God, it would be as yor ne- 
cessary that there should be not only an 
article, but a preposition also befure mved- 
. If the article be not authentic, we 
must render “dead carnally, but alive 


Arr. UL] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. > Ok 
English version, we must read the passage thus: ‘ Christ suffered 
‘for us, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; 
being put to death in the flesh, but quick in His Spirit; by which 
(or in which) He went and preached (or proclaimed) to the spirits 
in safe keeping,” &c. There is, it will be observed, a marked an- 
tithesis between “ flesh ” and “ spirit.” In Christ’s Flesh or Body 
He was put to death. Men were “able to kill the body,” but they 
could not kill His soul. . He was therefore alive in His Soul,! and 
in or by that He went to the souls who were in safe custody 
(ἐν φυλακῇ) ; His Body was dead, but His Spirit, or Soul, went to 
their spirits or souls. This is the natural interpretation of the 
passage ; and if it ended here, it would contain no difficulty, and its 
sense would never have been doubted. It would have contained a 
simple assertion of our Lord’s descent to the spirits of the dead.? 
But it is added, that He not only went to the spirits in safe 
keeping, but that He went and preached to them. Hence it has 
been inferred, that, if He preached, they had need of, and He 
offered to them, repentance. Hence the passage has appeared to 
savour of false doctrine, and hence its force has been explained 
away. But the word “ preached,” or “ proclaimed,” by no means 
necessarily infers that He preached either faith or repentance. 
Christ had just finished the work of salvation, had made an end οἵ. 
sin, and conquered hell. Even the angels seem not to be fully 
enlightened as to all the work of grace which God performs for 
man. It is not likely, then, that the souls of the departed 
patriarchs should have fully understood or known all that Christ 
had just accomplished for them. They indeed may have known, 
and no doubt did know, the great truth, that redemption was to 
be wrought for all men by the sufferings and death of the Messiah. 
But before the accomplishment of this great work, neither angels 
nor devils seem fully to have understood the mystery of it. If 
this be true, when the blessed Soul of our crucified Redeemer 
went among the souls of those whom He had just redeemed, what 


spiritually.” If we admit the article, we 
must then translate, “dead in body, but 
alive in His Spirit,” ὁ 6. in His soul. The 
ancient versions support this rendering, 
and Michaelis and Rosenmiiller give a 
similar interpretation. Bp. Middleton 
refers with full approbation to Bp. Hors- 
ley’s Sermon mentioned below. See Mid- 
dleton, On the Article, in loc. 

1 ζωοποιηϑείς corresponds with the Hi- 
phil of rable which means “to keep 


alive,” as much as “to make alive.” 


2 The expression ἐν φυλακῇ by no 
means necessarily signifies a place of 
punishment. It may mean a place of 
protection. It is simply in ward, in guar- 
dianship. The rendering of the Syriac, 
which from its antiquity is so important, 


is SO1ad, in Hades. The followirig 


is its rendering of the whole passage + 
“He was dead in body, but alive in 
spirit: and he preached to those souls 
which were kept in Hades.” / 


103 ΣΝ “THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Aet. I. 


ean be more probable than that He should have “" proclaimed” 
(ἐκήρυξεν) to them, that their redemption had been fully effected, 
that Satan had been conquered, that the great sacrifice had been 
offered up? If angels joy over one sinner that repenteth, may 
we not suppose Paradise filled with rapture when the Soul of 
Jesus came among the souls of His redeemed, Himself the herald 
(κήρυξ) of His own victory ? 

This is the view propounded by Bp. Horsley in his admirable 
sermon on this text.! It is perfectly unnecessary to suppose that 
the consequence of Christ’s preaching in Hades, or Paradise, was 
similar to His or His Apostles’ preaching on earth. Both indeed 
were preachings of glad tidings. But in this was the difference. 
Preaching on earth is to men, who need repentance, and whose 
repentance is acceptable. Preaching to the souls of the departed 
was a mere proclaiming of blessedness to men who had already 
repented when on earth, and had no need of repentance after 
death, when it never comes, and could not avail, even if it dil 
come. 

The only difficulty in this interpretation of this difficult pas- 
sage is in the fact that the preaching is specially said to have been 
addressed to those ** who had once been disobedient in the days of 
Noah.” That many who died in the flood may yet have been 
saved from final damnation seems highly probable, and has been 
the opinion of many learned divines. The flood was a great tem- 
poral judgment, and it follows not that “all who perished in the 
flood are to perish everlastingly in the lake of fire.” But the real 
difficulty consists in the fact that the proclamation of the finish- 
ing of the great work of salvation is represented by St. Peter as 
having been addressed to these antediluvian penitents, and no 
mention is made of the penitents of later ages, who are equally 
interested in the tidings. 

It must be confessed that this is a knot which cannot easily 
be untied. Yet should not this induce us to reject the literal and 
grammatical interpretation of the passage, and to fall back upon 
those forced glosses which have been devised in order to avoid, 
instead of fairly meeting and endeavouring to solve, an acknowl- 
edged difficulty. Bishop Horsley says that he thinks he has 
observed, in some parts of Scripture, an anxiety, if the expression 
may be allowed, of the sacred writers, to convey distinct intima- 
tions that the antediluvian race is not uninterested in the redemp- 
tion and the final retribution.” It may be conceived, too, he thinks, 


1 Vol. 1. Serm. xx. 


OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 103 


that those who perished in the most awful of God’s temporal 
judgments would, more than any, need and look for the comfort 
of Christ’s presence, and that consolation which His preaching in 
the regions of the departed would afford ‘to those prisoners of 
hope.” Whether or not such ideas give any clue to the solution 
of this difficulty it may be hard to say. But in the same author’s 
words, “Is any difficulty that may present itself to the human 
mind, upon the circumstances of that preaching, of sufficient 
weight to make the thing unfit to be believed upon the word of 
the Apostle ?—or are we justified, if, for such difficulties, we 
abandon the plain sense of the Apostle’s words, and impose upon 
them another meaning, not easily adapted to the words, though 
more proportioned to the capacity of our own understanding, 
especially when it is confirmed by other Scriptures that He went 
to that place? In that place He could not but find the souls that 
are in it in safe keeping ; and in some way or other, it cannot but 
be supposed, He would hold conference with them ; and ἃ partic- 
ular conference with one class might be the means, and certainly 
could be no obstruction to a general communication with all. If 
the clear assertions of Holy Writ are to be discredited, on account 
of difficulties which may seem to the human mind to arise out of 
them, little will remain to be believed in revealed or even in what 
is called natural religion: we must immediately part with the 
doctrine of atonement,—of gratuitous redemption,—of justification 
by faith without the works of the law,— of sanctification by the 
influence of the Holy Spirit; and we must part at once with the 
hope of the Resurrection.” ἢ 


Arr. 1Π.] 


a passing into the state of the dead. At 
another time he argues as if hell meant 
the place of torment, and says that Christ 
went there tosave us from going thither, 
for which he quotes Tertullian, who, how- 
ever, mentions the opinion only to con- 


1 P. 486. The whole Sermon deserves 
careful attention, and should be compared 
with Bishop Middleton, on 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
It is to be lamented that Bishop Pearson, 
in his most learned and elaborate article 
on the Descent into Hell, should have 
demn it. 


written less lucidly than is ltis wont. In 
more passages than one, unless I greatly 
misunderstand him, he has contradicted 
himself. At one time he defines hell as 
the place of departed spirits, and makes 
our Lord’s descent thither no more than 


See especially p. 25 

[See also Bishop Hobart, On the State 
of the Departed; and Bishop’ Seabury’s 
wh he Descent of Christ into Hell. — 


. 


ARTICLE IV. 


---- 


Of the Resurrection of Christ. 


Curist did truly rise again from death, 
and took again His body, with flesh, 
bones, and all things appertaining to the 

rfection of man’s nature, wherewith 

e ascended into Heaven, and there sit- 
teth, until He return to judge all men at 
the last day. 


De Resurrectione Christi. 


Curistus vere ἢ mortuis resurrexit, 
suumque corpus cum carne, ossibus, om- 
nibusque ad integritatem humanz na- 
ture pertinentibus recepit: cum quibus 
in celum ascendit, ibique residet, quoad 
extremo die ad judicandos homines re- 
versurus sit. 





Srcrion I. — HISTORY. 


pas subjects treated of in this Article may be divided as 
follows : — 

First, We. must consider Christ’s Resurrection with His 
human Body; Srconpiy, His Ascension, and Session at God’s 
Right Hand; Tuirpiy, His Return to Judgment. 


I-II. The first and second of these divisions may historically 
be considered together. 

Christ’s Resurrection forms a part of all the ancient Creeds, 
and is followed by the Ascension, Session, and Judgment, as in 
this Article. 

The Sadducees, who denied all resurrection, of course would 
deny the resurrection of Christ. The Essenes also, though they 
believed the immortality of the soul, yet did not believe that the 
body would rise. We find, as early as Apostolic times, that some 
heretics had crept into the Christian Church, who said that ‘ there 
was no resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. xv. 12), and that * the 
resurrection was past already” (2 Tim. ii. 18). Whoever these 
heretics may have been, not long after them the Docete, denying 
the reality of Christ’s flesh, and holding the doctrine of the general 
malignity of matter, of necessity disbelieved the truth of the res- 
urrection and ascension of Christ. Augustine tells us that the 
Cerinthians held that Jesus, whom they took to be a mere man, 


Src. 11 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 


105 


had not risen, but was yet to rise.! Apelles, a disciple of Mar- 
cion’s, held that, when Christ came down from Heaven, He formed 
for Himself as He descended an airy and sidereal flesh, but when 
He arose and ascended into Heaven, He restored this body to its 
pristine elements, which being thus dispersed, His Spirit alone 
returned to Heaven.” 

Some of the earlier heretics, though otherwise connected with 
the Gnostics, did not absolutely deny either a body or a resurrec- 
tion to Christ, but invented strange fables concerning it. Thus, 
according to Theodoret, Hermogenes believed our Lord’s Body to 
be placed in the Sun.? And Tertullian mentions certain heretics 
who taught, ‘that the flesh of Christ was in the heavens devoid of 
sense, as a scabbard or sheath, Christ being withdrawn from it.” 4 
The Manichees, like the Gnostics or Docetee, denying the reality 
of Christ’s flesh, and believing matter to be evil, denied Christ’s 
resurrection; but as they seem to have identified Christ with 
Mithras (zthereal Light, the Sun), there may have been some 
connection between their belief and that of Hermogenes mentioned 
above.® The doctrine of Eutyches concerning the Person of 
Christ, as it was opposed to the verity of His Manhood, so it 
by implication opposed the verity of His resurrection; and so 
Theodoret accuses him of considering that the Godhead only rose 
from the grave.® 

In later ages, when the controversies arose concerning the pres- 
ence of Christ in the Eucharist, it has been thought that divines 
of the Roman and Lutheran communions were led to use language 
concerning the glorified Body of our blessed Lord, and its ubiquity, 
which almost savoured of Eutychianism; as though, after His 
ascension, His human nature had become so deified as to have 
lost the attributes of humanity, and have been transubstantiated 
into His Divinity. There is little doubt that the strong language 
of this Article was designed to oppose so exaggerated an opinion, 


‘.1“Jesum hominem tantummodo fu- and Hermias. See Lardner, Hist. of 


isse, nec resurrexisse, sed resurrecturum 
asseverantes.”” — August. Heres, vit. 
Tom. viir. p. 7. 

2 Tertullian. De Prescript. adv. Heer. 
6. 88. De Resurr. Carnis, c. 5. Epiphan. 
Her.xutv. August. Heres.xx1. Pear- 
son, On the Creed, p. 272. Lardner, Hist. 
of Heretics, Book 11. chap. XII. sect. x. 
King, On Creed, p. 261. 

ὃ Theodoret. Heret. Fab. Lib. 1. 6. 19. 
Pearson, On the Creed, p. 278. King, p 
263. 


Philaster and Augustine aseribe the 
same opinion to the followers of Seleucus 


14 


Heretics, Book 11. ch. xvi11. sect. VIII. 

+ “Adfirmant carnem in celis vacuam 
sensu, ut vaginam, exempto Christo, se- 
dere.”— De Carne Christi, c. 24. Pearson, 
p- 212. King, p. 269. 

5 Μέχρι σήμερον Μανιχαῖοι λέγουσι φαντα- 
σιώδη καὶ οὐκ ἀληϑὴ τοῦ Σωτῆρος τὴν ava- 
στασιν γεγονέναι.---- Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 
xiv. Suicer, 1. col. 311. 

ὁ Theodoret (Heeret. Fab. Lib. 1v. cap. 
x11.) says he asserted τὴν ϑεότητα 
τάφῳ παραδυϑεῖσαν τετυχηκέναι τῆς ἀναστί: 
σεως. --- See Suicer, 1. col. 311. 


106 UF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 


if such really existed; which may be the better seen by compar- 
ing the words of the Article with the rubric at the end of the 
Communion Service. 

It is not to be concealed, that in later times some persons, of 
very sound opinions in the main, have been offended by the state- 
ment that our Lord took into Heaven “ flesh, bones, and all things 
pertaining to man’s nature;’’ whereas they contend that our 
Lord’s Body at His ascension, if not before, became a spiritual 
body, and a spiritual body cannot be said to have “ flesh and bones,” 
which pertain only to a natural body. This objection must be 
considered hereafter ; and in the mean time we have only to add, 
that the language of the Article corresponds with that of the early 
fathers. Ignatius says that ‘ he knew and believed Him to be in 
the flesh after His resurrection.” ? Irenzeus, in one of his creeds, 
confesses his belief in ‘the reception of Jesus Christ into Heaven 
in the flesh.” ® In the Epistle of Damasus to Paulinus, the follow- 
ing anathema occurs amongst others, “If any one shall not 86- 
knowledge that Christ is set down at the right hand of the Father, 
in the same flesh which He took here, let him be anathema.’’4 
Augustine meets the objection which may be made to this doe- 
trine: “It offends some,” he says, ‘that we believe an earthly 
Body to have been taken into Heaven ; they understand not how 
it is said in Scripture, It is sown a natural, it\is raised a spiritual 
body.” ® To the like purpose writes Epiphanius: “ He ascended 
into Heaven, not divesting Himself of His holy Body, but uniting 
it to a spiritual one.”’ ὅ 

The fathers indeed held that Christ’s Body, after His resurrec- 
tion, remained truly a human Body, and was not changed into a 


(Art. IV. 


1 The rubric, after explaining that by 
kneeling at the Communion no adoration 
is intended either to the ‘“‘ Sacramental 
Bread and Wine, or unto any Corporal 
Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and 
Blood,” adds, ‘The natural Body and 
Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heay- 
en, and not here; it being against the 
truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one 
time in more places than one.”’ This ru- 
bric was first inserted in the Second Ser- 
vice-Book of Edward VI. It was omit- 
ted in the Prayer- Book in Elizabeth’s 
reign, probably from a wish not to offend 
the many persons of Lutheran sentiments 
then in communion with the Chureh. 
It was restored in the last revision in the 
reign of Charles 11., at the request of the 
SE noe irre 

Ἢ peri wv 
κὶ οἷδα, καὶ πιστεύω ὄντα..---- Epist. ad 


Smyrn. c. 8. Pearson, p. 255. Suicer, 
1. col. 307. 

3 τὴν ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν 
τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Χριστοὺ ᾿Ιησοῦ.--- Lib. 1. ¢. 2. 

4 Theodoret, Δίου. Llist. Lib. Vv. ο, xi. 
King, On Creed, p. 268. 

5“ Solet autem quosdam offendere, vel 
impios Gentiles vel hwreticos, quod creda- 
mus assumptum terrenum corpus in ca@- 
lum. Sed Gentiles plerumque philosopho- 
rum argumentis nobiscum agere student, 
ut dicant terrenum aliquid in celo esse 
non posse. Nostras enim Scripturas non 
noverunt, nec sciunt quomodo dictum sit, 
Seminatur corpus an:male, surgit corpus spi- 
rituale.”” — August. De lide et Symbolo, 
c. v1. Tom. γα. p. 157. 

6 ᾽Ανελϑὼν εἰς οὐρανοὺς, ἐκώϑισεν ἐν def- 
τᾷ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐν δόξῃ, οὐκ ἀποϑέμενος τὸ ἅγιαν 

ἀλλὰ συνενώσας εἰς πνευματικόν. τ η- 


aceph. Tom. 11. p. 156. Colon. King, p. 262 


Sec. 1.1 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 10T 


spirit, or absorbed into God.t Yet they held, that it was <livested 
of all that was mortal, carnal, and corruptible, and became a spirit- 
ual Body, incorruptible, unchangeable, impassible. So Theophy- 
lact, “Did He lay aside His flesh? God forbid; for as He was 
taken up, so shall He come. But He was taken up in the flesh, 
and with a Body. Now Christ is said to have lived after the flesh, 
when He lived subject to natural and blameless affections and 
feelings, — hungering, thirsting, sleeping, working. But now He 
is no longer after the flesh, that is, He is freed from all such nat- 
ural and blameless affections, having a body impassible and incor- 
ruptible.” 2 


Ill. The third head concerns our Lord’s return to Judg- 
ment. 

The Marcionites and other Gnostics are supposed to have denied 
a future Judgment. Their creed was, that God was of infinite 
grace and mercy; that the Creator, whom they distinguished 
from God, was just; not so God, or His Son Jesus Christ. They 
were also accused of holding that the actions of men in the body 
were indifferent; and this tenet, by implication, is a denial of the 
Judgment. The Manichees are charged, in like manner, with 
denying a Judgment, as they, no doubt, did deny a resurrection 
of the body.* 

One of the peculiar views of Emmanuel Swedenborg in modern 
times, and of his followers, who call themselves the Church of the 
New Jerusalem, was that the passages of Scripture concerning the 
Judgment are not to be literally interpreted. Swedenborg taught 
that all men are subject to two opposite influences, one from God 
and good spirits, the other from evil angels ; that according as they 
yield to one or the other influence, the soul rises or falls. Heaven 
and hell then are not the result of a Divine appointment, or of a 


1 Οὐκοῦν οὐκ εἰς ϑεότητος μετεβλῆϑη 
φύσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἀϑά- 
vatov μένει καὶ ἄῤφϑαρτον, καὶ ϑείας δόξης 
μεστόν " σῶμα δὲ ὅμως, τὴν οἰκείαν ἔχον πε- 
ριγραφῆν. ---- Theodoret. Demonstr. per Syl- 
log. “Ort ἀσύγχυτος 7 ἕνωσις, Syl. 1x. 

Again: Οὐ μετεβλήϑη εἰς πνεῦμα τὸ 
σῶμα" σὰρξ γὰρ nv, καὶ ὀστέα, καὶ χεῖρες, καὶ 
πόδες " τοιγαροῦν καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν 
σῶμα τὸ σῶμα μεμένηκεν. ---- Ibid. Syl. x. 
See Suicer, 1. coll. 307, 808. 

2 Theophyl. ad 2 Cor. ν. 16. 

Τὴν σάρκα ἀπέϑετο: μὴ γένοιτο" ὡς γὰρ 
ἀνελήφϑη, οὕτω καὶ ἐλεύσεται " ἀνελήφϑη 
ἔν σαρκὶ καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος. .. . Ὁ δὲ 


Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα λέγεται ζῆσαι, ὅτε meri 
τὰ φυσικὰ καὶ ἀδιάβλητα πάϑη ἔζη, πεινῶν, 
διψῶν, ὑπνῶν, κοπιῶν " νῦν δὲ, οὐκέτι κατὰ 
σάρκα" τουτέστι, τούτων τῶν φυσικῶν καὶ 
ἀδιαβλήτων ἀπηλλάγη, ἀπαϑὲς καὶ ἀκήρατον 
σῶμα ἔχων. 

So Theodoret on the same passage : 
Ei γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς 6 δεσπότης Χριστὸς παϑη- 
τὸν εἶχε τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τὸ πάϑος ἄφϑαρ- 
Tov τοῦτο πεποίηκε καὶ ἀϑάνατον. ---- See 
Suicer as above. 

® See King, On the Creed, p. -74. 

* Hey’s Lectures, 11. p. 390; and Lard- 
ner as referred to there. 


108 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.  [Arr. IV 


future Judgment, but the necessary conditions of a man, according 
as he is good or evil. The passages of Scripture concerning the 
last Judgment are to be understood of the end and consummation 
of the Church which now is, and the establishment of a purer and 
better Church, which is called the descent “ of the New Jerusalem 
from God out of Heaven.” 





Section II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


I. As regards the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, it requires 

very little argument to prove that Scripture teaches the 

fact. The truth of such teaching must be here, as usual, assumed ; 

all argument on such subjects being referred to the head of 
evidence. 

The concluding chapters of the four Gospels, and the fifteenth 
chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, contain the fullest 
account of that miraculous event. They should be studied to- 
gether, and with such aids as have been furnished by writers on 
the harmony of the Gospels. 

It is to be observed, however, that the Resurrection is in many 
respects the key-stone of the Christian Faith. On the truth of it 
depends the truth of the Gospel; for it was to this great fact 
especially that the Apostles bore witness, and on its veracity they 
rested their claims to be heard and believed. Our Lord Himself 
continually foretold it, and so its occurrence became essential to 
the establishment of His truth. Accordingly we find, both before 
. and after the event, most numerous allusions to it in the writings 
of the new Testament. For example, Matt. xvii. 9, 23. Mark 
vii. 81; ix. 81. John ii. 19; x. 17,18. Acts i. 22; ii. 24, 36; 
ΧΙ, 80-37. Rom. iv. 25; vi. 4. Eph. i. 20. Col. ii. 12; iii. 
1, &. &e. 

Yet the historical is scarcely greater than the doctrinal impor- 
tance of the Resurrection. In Scripture, the life of the Christian 
and of the Christian Church is represented as connected with, 
and depending on the life of Christ, who is the Head of the 


1 Those most approved of in our own gelica, and his five volumes of Dissertations 
language are Lighttoot, Macknight, Gres- on the subject, should be in every stu- 
well, &. Greswell’s Harmonia Evan- dent's library. 


Swe  Ν 


Sec. IL] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 109 


Church and the Saviour of the Body.1. The Christian therefore 
is said to die with Christ, and to rise again with Him.? And this 
connection of the Redeemer and His redeemed is spiritual here, 
and bodily and spiritual both hereafter. For here the union of the 
Christian with Christ is the cause of spiritual life ; hereafter the 
same union shall be the cause of resurrection to life eternal. The 
Apostle speaks of the power of Christ’s resurrection as having 
been shown already, thus: “God who is rich in mercy. . . when 
we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, and 
hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly 
places in Christ Jesus,” Eph. ii. 4,5, 6; and again: “If ye be 
risen with Christ, seek those things which are above,” Col. iii. 1. 
But he also speaks of the power of the same resurrection as to be 
shown hereafter, not only in raising the soul from sin, but the body 
also from corruption. ‘If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus 
from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the 
dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit which 
dwelleth in you,” Rom. viii. 11. And again, ““ He which raised 
up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus,” 2 Cor. iv. 14. 
And thus it is that by virtue of His own resurrection, or, as St. 
Paul calls it, “the power of His resurrection”? (Phil. iii. 10), 
the Lord Jesus is to His disciples “‘ the Resurrection and the Life” 
(John xi. 25). 


II. The second head of this article concerns the Ascension, 
and Session at God’s Right Hand. 

1. The Ascension into Heaven is related in Mark xvi. 19. 
Luke xxiv. 51. Acts i. 1-12. 

It had been predicted in the old Testament (especially Ps. 
Ixviil. 18, which is explained by the Apostle, Eph. iv. 8); it had 
been foretold by our Lord Himself (John vi. 62; xx. 17); and it 
finally took place in the presence of His cheat disciples. 

The importance of it to us was typified on the great day of 
atonement, when the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies 
once every year. ‘The tabernacle, as is familiarly known, consisted 
of two principal parts. The first was called the Sanctuary or holy 
place, which typified the world, or more properly the Church on 
earth; where daily the priesthood ministered, offering sacrifices 
for the people, and sending up incense, the symbol of prayer and 


1 John xv. 1-7; xvii. 23. Rom. xii. 2 Rom. vi.8. Eph. ii. 5,6. Col. ii. 
6. 1 Cor. vi. 15; xii. 27. Eph. i. 22, 12; iii. 1. 1Pet.i.8. 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11, 
23; iv. 15, 16; v. "23. Col. i: 18, &e. 14, Rom. viii. 11. 1 Cor. vi. 14, &e. 


110 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.  [Arr. IV. 


praise. But within the veil, whither no common priest had access, 
was the Holy of Holies, or the’ Holiest of all. Into this, once 
every year, on the tenth day of Tisri, the Fast, or day of atone- 
ment, the High Priest alone entered. He had made atonement 
for himself, for the sanctuary, and for the people, by sacrificing a 
bullock, a ram, and a goat; and dressed in the white robes com- 
mon to the. priesthood, he went with blood of the victims into the 
most holy place, and sprinkled seven times before the mercy-seat 
the blood of the bullock and the goat (Levit. xvi.) That this all 
prefigured the entrance of Christ “into Heaven itself, now to 
appear in the presence of God for us,” we have the word of the 
Apostle in the ninth chapter of the Hebrews. As the High Priest 
was in the common white garments, not in the gorgeous robe of 
his high priesthood, so Christ went up in the likeness of sinful 
humanity, carrying our nature with Him, though pure from the sin 
of humanity, as the garment of the priest was holy and white 
(Lev. xvi. 4). As the priest took with him the blood of the 
sacrifice, so Christ offered His own Blood, and before the mercy- 
seat of God pleaded, and forever pleads, the merits of His Sacri- 
fice, ‘seeing that He ever liveth to make intercession for us.” ! 

2. The Session at the Right Hand of God, foretold Ps. ex. 1 
(comp. Luke xx. 42), and by our Lord, Matt. xxvi. 64, Mark xiv. 
62, Luke xxii. 69, is recorded, Mark xvi. 19, Acts ii. 34, Rom. 
viii, 84, Eph. i. 20, Col. iii. 1, Heb. i. ὃ, 18, 1 Pet. iii. 22. It 
is hardly necessary to observe, that, when the Scriptures speak 
of the Right Hand of God, they mean thereby, not that God has 
hands like a man, but that as the right hand among men is the 
place of honour, of power, and of joy,? so to be by the Right 
Hand of God is to have the place of highest glory, power, and 
pleasure in the presence of God in Heaven; and to sit has no 
reference to posture, but implies dignity, sovereignty, and judg- 
ment. 

Christ has ascended into Heaven, and there He abides. He 
now occupies that Mediatorial throne, where He is to sit, till all 
enemies be made His footstool (Ps. cx. 1. 1 Cor. xv. 25). He 
had been anointed to His kingly office, when the Holy Ghost 
descended on Him at His baptism (Matt. iii. 16. Acts x. 38). 
He vindicated His title to the throne, when by “death He over- 
came him who had the power of death, even the devil.” He 
made a farther advance to the assumption of His dominion, when 


Δ Heb. viii. ix. x. passim. 
21 Kings ii. 19. Matt. xxvi. 64. Ps. xvi. 11. 


Sec. IL] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 111 


He rose victorious from the grave, and thereupon declared to His 
disciples, that “all power was given Him in Heaven and earth” 
(Matt. xxviii. 18). But it was not until His final exaltation, when 
God, having “‘raised Him from the dead, set Him at His own right 
hand in heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and 
might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in 
this world, but also in that which is to come,” that ‘all things 
having been put under His feet,” He was “ given to be Head over 
all things to the Church” (Eph. i. 20, 21, 22); “set upon the 
throne of His father David” (Luke i. 32); and “there was given 
to Him dominion and glory and a kingdom,” “an everlasting 
dominion which shall not pass away, and a kingdom which shall 
not be destroyed” (Dan. vii. 14). 

8. The next point for our consideration is, that Christ is said 
“to have taken again His Body, with flesh, bones, and all things 
belonging to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith He as- 
cended into Heaven.” 

It has been seen, in the former Section, what the fathers 
appear to have taught on this subject. That our Lord arose from 
the grave in the same Body in which He was buried, that the 
same Body, with flesh and bones, which was laid in the sepulchre 
a lifeless corpse, was reanimated and rose again to life on the third 
day, is plainly and unquestionably the statement of the Evange- 
‘lists. It was on this fact that their preaching and their faith 
rested. It was the assurance of this fact that convinced St. 
Thomas of the Divinity of Christ. He had declared that he 
would not believe the resurrection until he had seen in our Lord’s 
hands the print of the nails, and had thrust his hand into His side 
(John xx. 25). That is to say, he required proof that our Lord’s 
Body, which had risen, was the same Body which had_ been 
crucified ; and when our Lord vouchsafed him this proof, then, 
and not till then, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 
xx. 25-28). 

But farther, when, on one occasion, the disciples were assem- 
bled, and our Lord suddenly appeared among them, ‘they were 
terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit ; 
but He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do 
thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, 
that it is I myself: handle Me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh 
and bones, as ye see Me have. And when He had thus spoken, 
He showed them His hands and His feet” (Luke xxiv. 36-40). 
Thus it is clear that our Lord’s Body, after He rose from the 


112 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.  [Arr. IV. 


grave, was that Body in which He was buried, having hands and 
feet, and flesh and bones, capable of being handled, and in which 
He spoke and ate and drank (Luke xxiv. 42, 43). Moreover, it 
appears that our Lord thus showed His hands and feet to His 
disciples at that very interview with them in which He was 
parted from them and received up into Heaven. This will be 
seen by reading the last chapter of St. Luke, from verse 36 to the 
end, and comparing it with the first chapter of the Acts, ver. 4-9; 
especially comparing Luke xxiv. 49, 50, with Acts i. 4, 8,9. In 
that Body, then, which the disciples felt and handled, and which 
was proved to them to have flesh and bones, these disciples saw our 
Lord ascend into Heaven; and immediately after His ascent, angels 
came and declared to them, that that ‘same Jesus whom they had 
seen taken up into Heaven, should so come in like manner as they 
had seen Him go into Heaven” (Acts i. 11). All this connected 
together seems to prove the identity of our Lord’s Body after His 
resurrection, at His ascension, and so on, even till His coming to 
Judgment, with the Body in which He suffered, and in which He 
was buried ; and so fully justifies the language used in the Article 
of our Church. 

But because we maintain that the Body of Christ, even after 
His resurrection and ascension, is a true human Body, with all 
things pertaining to the perfection of man’s nature (to deny which 
would be to deny the important truth that Christ is still perfect 
Man as well as perfect God); it by no means therefore follows 
that we should deny that His risen Body is now a glorified, and 
as St. Paul calls it, a spiritual Body. Nay! we have the strongest 
proofs that so it is. 

Even before His ascension, He is said to have come and stood in 
the midst of His disciples, where the doors were shut for fear of 
the Jews (John xx. 19). On another occasion, He is said to have 
vanished out of their sight (Luke xxiv. 31). Again, His appear- 
ing to them “in another form” (Mark xvi. 12), and the disciples 
going to Emmaus not at once knowing Him (Luke xxiv. 16), seem 
to show that there was some change in the appearance, as well as 
in the properties of His Body. Though His Body had not ceased 
to be the same Body which it was before His death, it yet appears 
to have received some degree of glorification, and to have been in- 
vested with some supernatural qualities. 

But, after His ascension, we have St. Paul’s distinct assurance 
that the Body of Christ is a glorious, is.a spiritual Body. In 1 Cor. 
xv. we have St. Paul’s assertion, that, in the resurrection of all 


OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 


Sec. II.] 113 


men, the body shall rise again, but that it shall no longer be a nat- 
ural body, but a spiritual body; no longer a corruptible: and vile, 
but an incorruptible and glorious body. ‘It is sown in corruption ; 
it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in 
power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual. body. 
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” “ Flesh and 
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption 
inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery ; we shall not 
all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” ‘ For this corruptible must 
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 
Cor. xv. 42-53). And this change of our bodies, from natural to 
spiritual, is expressly stated to be bearing the image of our glorified 
Lord, —the image of that heavenly man, the Lord from Heaven 
(vv. 47-49). 

So again, the glorified state of the saints’ bodies after the 
Resurrection, which in 1 Cor. xv. had been called the receiving a 
spiritual body, is, in Phil. iii. 21, said to be a fashioning of their 
bodies to the likeness of Christ’s glorious Body; ‘who shall 
change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His 
glorious Body.” 

We must therefore conclude, that, though Christ rose with the 
same Body in which He died, and that Body neither did, nor 
shall cease to be a human Body, still it acquired, either at His 
Resurrection or at His Ascension, the qualities and attributes of 
a spiritual, as distinguished by the Apostle from a natural body, 
of an incorruptible as distinguished from a corruptible body. 

It is not perhaps given us to know the exact meaning of the 
term “ἃ spiritual body.” ‘ We know not yet what we shall be; ” 
and so we do not exactly know what He is, whom we shall be like. 
It may be better to leave in the obscurity in which Scripture has 
left it, this great and glorious mystery. And we shall err on 
neither side, if we maintain that our blessed Saviour still con- 
tinues our Mediator in Heaven, perfect. in His nature of God, and 
perfect in His nature of Man; but with His human nature, which 
on earth, though sinless, was mortal and corruptible, now raised to 
glory and immortality and incorruptibility ; His natural having 
become a spiritual, His corruptible an incorruptible body.? 


1 “Non ita dictum est, quasi corpus 
vertatur in spiritum, et spiritus fiat; quia 
et nunc corpus nostrum, quod animale 
dicitur, non in animam versum est et 
anima factum. Sed spirituale corpus in- 
telligitur, quod ita spiritui subditum est, 
ut celesti habitationi conveniat, omni 

15 


fragilitate ac labe terrena in ccelestem 
puritatem et stabilitatem mutata atque 
conversa.”— August. De Fide et Symbolo, 
6. vi. Tom. vi. p. 157. 

2 There may be a difficulty in recon- 
ciling this doctrine, which is the plain 
doctrine of Scripture and the primitive 


114 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. [Ar IV 


III. The third head of the Article is on the Judgment; in 
which we may consider, — 

1. The Agent or Person who shall judge, Christ. 
2. The object to be judged, namely, all men. 
8. The action, judgment. 

4. The time, the last day. 

1. As regards the Agent; it is, in the first place, clear that 
God shall be “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen. xviii. 25. Ps. 
lviii. 11). Hence the day of Judgment is called “the day of 
God” (2 Peter iii. 12),— ‘the great day of Almighty God” 
(Rev. xvi. 14). Daniel saw “the thrones cast down, and the 
Ancient of days did sit” (Dan. vii. 9); and St. John saw “the 
dead great and small stand before God,” for judgment (Rev. 
xx. 12). 

Now, when God is thus generally spoken of, we must either 
understand God the Father, or the whole blessed Trinity. And 
in the general, it is true to say that God shall judge the earth, 
or, that God the Father shall judge the earth. But then, as God 
made the worlds, but it was by God the Son; as God hath pur- 
chased the Church, but it was by the death of His Son; so the 
Father Himself “judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg- 
ment unto the Son” (John v. 22). ‘He hath given Him author- 
ity to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man” (John 
v. 27); “*He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge 
the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained” 
(Acts xvii. 31) ; “He will judge the secrets of all men by Jesus 
Christ” (Rom. ii. 16). 

Accordingly, the Judgment, when fully described, is ever repre- 
sented as the coming of the Lord Jesus. It is called the “day of 
Christ”’ (2 Thess. ii. 2)... “ We must all appear before the judg- 
ment-seat of Christ’ (2 Cor. v. 10). ‘The Son of Man shall 
come in the glory of His Father, with His angels” (Matt. xvi. 27 ; 
xxiv. 87; xxv. 31; xxvi. 64). The “same Jesus which was 
taken up into Heaven, shall come again in like manner as he went 


Christians, with the language of the ru- must not consider the manhood of Christ 
bric at the end of the Communion Ser- changed into His Godhead. So St.Augus- 
vice quoted above. If they be at vari- tine: ‘Noli itaque dubitare ibi nunc esse 


ance, the language of a not very care- 
fully worded rubric, adopted not without 
some hesitation by the reformers, ought 
not to be pressed; but it is plain, t 
the writers of the rubric did not mean 
by the words “‘ natural body ” to convey 
the same idea as St. Paul attaches to the 
term in 1 Cor. xv. The doctrine which 
they meant to teach was only, that we 


hominem Christum Jesum, unde venturus 
est;....in eadem carnis forma atque sub- 
stantia ; cui profecto immortalitatem de- 
dit, naturam non abstulit. Secundum 
hance formam non est putandus ubique 
diffusus. Cavendum est enim, ne ita 
divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veri- 
tatem corporis auferamus.”’ — Ad Dard. 
Epist. 181. Tom. 1. p. 681. 


Src. IL] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 115 


into Heaven” (Acts i. 11). “He has been ordained of God to 
be Judge of quick and dead” (Acts x. 42). He says of Himself, 
“Behold! I come quickly, and my reward is with me” (Rey. 
xxii. 12). 

2. The objects of the Judgment are all men, whether those 
living at the time of Christ’s coming, or those already fallen 
asleep,—‘‘the quick and the dead.” 

In the first Epistle to the Thessalonians (iv. 15-17), the 
Apostle describes the awful scene of our Lord’s coming to save 
His people: ‘* The Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with 
a shout, with the voice of the Archangel and the trump of God, 
and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive 
and remain” (ὦ. ¢., whoever of Christ’s servants may then remain 
alive on the earth) “shall be caught up together with them in the 
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.”’ In the like manner, he says 
( Cor. xv. 51, 52), “ We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be 
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last 
trump. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised 
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” Accordingly it is said 
(2 Tim. iv. 1) that “the Lord Jesus Christ shall judge the quick 
and the dead at His appearing ;” that He ‘“‘ was ordained of God 
to be the Judge of quick and dead” (Acts x. 42. Compare Matt. 
xxv. throughout, John v. 25, 28, ὧς.) 

8. The Judgment itself, which is the action the great Judge 
is to perform, is fully described in several of the passages already 
quoted or referred to. The twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew 
especially, under a variety of images, sets forth the terrors of the 
great day of the Lord: the ten virgins that meet the Bride- 
groom—the servants with their various talents—the Lord with 
all nations brought before Him, dividing them as a Shepherd the 
sheep from the goats. 

In all these passages, and many besides, it is expressly said 
that the Judgment itself shall be ‘according to works.” On this 
subject the following references may be consulted, and will be 
found full and express. Job xxxiv.11. Ps. Ixii. 12. Prov. xxiv. 
12. Jer. xvii. 10; xxxii. 19. Matt. xvi. 27; xxv. 31-46. John 
v. 29. Rom. ii. 6. 2 Cor. v.10. Col. iii. 24, 25... Rev. xx. 12; 
xxii. 12. | 

It need only be added, that Judgment according to works is a 
doctrine of Scripture not opposed to justification by faith. That 
we cannot be justified by the merits of our own works is a plain 


116 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.  [Arr. IV. 


statement of St. Paul (Rom. iii. 20; viii. 3. Gal. ii. 16. Eph. 
ii. 9, ἅς.) But if we be renewed by the Spirit of God, and 
transformed in the spirit of our minds ; if Christ be in us, and the 
Spirit of God dwell in our hearts; then, being dead to sin, we 
ean no longer live therein (Rom. vi. 2). Sin will not reign in our 
mortal bodies (Rom. vi. 12) ; but “the law of the Spirit of life in 
Christ Jesus will have made us free from that law of sin” (Rom. 
viii. 2) which would naturally reign in us; and so “the righteous- 
ness of the law will be fulfilled in all who walk not after the flesh, 
but after the Spirit” (Rom. viii. 4). We are specially warned not 
to be deceived on this head; for “he that doeth righteousness is 
righteous ;” and “he who committeth sin is of the devil.” “He 
that doeth not righteousness is not of God” (1 John iii. T~-10). 
Thus, then, the mark of distinction between the children of God 
and the children of the devil is this, that righteousness is prac- 
tised by the one party, sin by the other. And hence it is but 
likely that Judgment, which is to distinguish Christ’s servants 
from His enemies, should be conducted according to the works of 
every man, which shall “be brought to light, whether they be 
good or evil.” The just indeed shall be rewarded, not because of 
the merit of their works, but because of the atonement and right- 
eousness of Christ. Yet still their own good works will be the 
test of their sanctification, and the proof before men and angels 
that they are living members of Christ and regenerated by His 
Spirit ; whereas the wicked works of wicked men will justly con- 
sign them to death and damnation. 

4, It remains but to speak of the time of Christ’s coming to 
Judgment,— the last day. 

The general descriptions of the Judgment already referred to 
(6. g. Matt. xxv. Rev. xx. 11-13, &c.) sufficiently show that it 
will not take place until the time when all present things shall 
pass away. All mankind, quick and dead, are represented as 
brought before the judgment-seat, and the just are sent to an 
everlasting reward, the wicked to an everlasting punishment. 
Accordingly, St. Paul says it shall be “at the last tramp” (1 Cor. 
xv. 52), and St. Peter represents “the heavens and the earth 
which are now” as “reserved unto fire against the day of Judg- 
ment.’ The heavens shall be dissolved, and the elements shall 
“melt with fervent heat;” yet there shall be for the redeemed 
‘a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness ” 
(2 Pet. iii. T-13). 


Src. 11. OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 117 


But though the time is thus accurately marked, as “the last 
day,” the close and consummation of the present state of things, 
yet we are continually told that it is utterly impossible for us to 
know how soon that day may come or how long it may tarry. 
It was not for our Lord’s most favoured disciples ‘to know the 
times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own 
power” (Acts i. 7). They and we are bid to ‘watch, for we 
know not what hour our Lord cometh” (Matt. xxiv. 42: compare 
also Matt. xxv. 18. Mark xiii. 88. Luke xii. 40. 2 Pet. iii. 
9-10). The disciples were taught to be constantly expecting our 
Lord; and accordingly they spoke and wrote as though they 
thought that He might come at any time. (See Rom, xiii. 11. 
Phil. iv.5. 1 Thess. iv.15,17. Heb. x. 25. James v. 7, 8, &c.) 
Yet still they were fully aware that He might delay His coming, 
they knew not how long; and the importance of this uncertainty 
St. Paul earnestly impresses on the Thessalonians (2 Thess. ii. 
1-3) ; and St. Peter still more fully inculcates on all men (2 Pet. 
iii. 4, 8-10). 

There is one passage, however, especially remarkable on this 
subject. After our Lord had foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, 
and assured His disciples that the generation then alive should 
not pass away till that His prediction was accomplished (Matt. 
xxiv. 34. Mark xiii. 30), He goes on to tell them that though 
He thus gave them to know the time when He would execute His 
judgment on Jerusalem, yet the day of His final judgment (which 
they had confounded with the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. 
xxiv. 36), was unknown to men and angels. Nay, according to 
the record of St. Mark, our Lord said, “ Of that day and that hour 
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither 
the Son, but the Father’? (Mark xiii. 32). 

It has been seen that in His human nature our Lord was 
capable of knowledge and of ignorance. He was perfect Man, as 
well as perfect God, and He grew in wisdom, as well as in stature 
(Luke ii. 52). In that nature, then, in which He was capable of 
ignorance, He, when He was on earth, knew not the coming of 
the day of God. Though He is Himself to come, yet as Man 
He knew not the day of His own coming. This is indeed a great 
mystery, that that Manhood, which is taken into one Person with 
the Godhead of the Son, should be capable of not knowing every- 
thing, seeing that God the Son is omniscient. But it is scarcely 
more inexplicable than that God the Son in His Manhood should 


hae ee ee, 5 oie ττν 


118 


OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 


et τ pg 
, τ. 


(Arr. IV. 


be weak, passible, and mortal, who in His Godhead is omnipotent, 
impassible, and immortal.! If we believe the one, we can admit 


the other. 


1 The explanation of Mark xiii. 82, 
given in the text, is both consonant with 
sound principles of interpretation and 
with sound theology, and has been the 
explanation of the most ancient Christian 
fathers. 

᾿Ανϑρωπίνως εἴρηκε" καὶ τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ ob- 
τως εἰρηκέναι ἔχει τὸ εὔλογον " ἐπειδὰν γὰρ ἄν- 


ϑρωπος γέγονεν, ὡς γέγραπται, ἀνθρώπων δὲ 
ἴδιον τὸ ἀγνοεῖν, Seon ean τὸ πεινᾷν, καὶ τὰ 
ἄλλα' διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τῶν ἀνϑρώ- 
πων, ὡς ἄνϑρωπος γεγονὼς, ἐπιδείκνυται " 
πρῶτον μὲν, ἵνα δείξῃ, ὅτε ἀληϑῶς ἀνϑρώπι- 
νον ἔχει σῶμα, κ. τ, A. — Athanas. Epist. τι. 
ad Serapion. Tom. 1. p. 172. See Suicer, 
8.0. κρίσις. Vv. 4, f. 





[It seems desirable to add a few words concerning the difficulty spoken of in note 2, 
p- 113. The word used by St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xy. is ψυχικόν (soul-ish), and this can 
hard'y be supposed to be the meaning of “ natural,” in the rubric at the end of the 
Communion Service. Had this latter word been written in Greek, it would have 
been φυσικόν. 

It does so read in a Greek translation of the Book of Common Prayer, printed at 
Cambridge in 1665,and published with the Apocrypha and New Testament. The 
concluding words of the rubric are καὶ τὸ φυσι κὺ ν τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ σῶμα καὶ 
αἷμα ἐν τῶ οὐρανῷ καὶ οὐκ ἐνθάδε ἐισὶ TH τὸν φυσικοῦ Χριστοῦ σώματος ἀληθείᾳ ἐνάν- 
τιον by, ἐν ἑνὶ χρόνω ἐν πλειόσι τόποις πλὴν ἑνός ὑπάρχον. 

There can, therefore, be no contradiction between St. Paul’s words and the rubric, 
unless it can be proved that ψυχή and φυσίς are synonymes. I am indebted for the 
above extract to the Rev. Mr. Hart, of Trinity College. —J. W.] 

[It seems impossible to understand St. Luke xxiv. 36-49, of any other time than 
the evening after the Resurrection, consequently not immediately before the Ascen- 
sion. The argument on page 112, though becoming in consequence less striking, is 
not materially weakened. — J. W.] i 


ARTICLE V. 


Of the Holy Ghost. De Spiritu Sancto. 


Tue Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre et Filio pro- 
Father and the Son, is of one substance, cedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio 

majesty, and glory with the Father and essentiz, majestatis et gloria, verus et 
' the Son, very and eternal God. seternus Deus. 





Srection I.— HISTORY. 


HE subjects of this Article to be treated on are—I. The 
Divinity; II. The Personality; III. The Procession, of the 
Holy Ghost. 


Those early heretics who denied the Divinity of the Son of 
God, seem generally to have disbelieved the Personality of the 
Holy Spirit, and to have looked on Him not as a Person, but as 
an efficacy, power, or emanation from God. 

This heresy appears to have been as early as Simon Magus him- 
self, and his immediate followers, the Gnostics. The like opinion 
would, of course, naturally prevail among those speculators who 
afterwards acquired the name of Sabellians, such as Praxeas, 
Noetus, Sabellius, Beryllus, Paulus Samosatenus.! 

The Arians, on the contrary, appear to have taught that the 
Spirit was a separate Person from the Father and the Son, but that 
He was, as they held the Son to be, but a creature. Nay, as they 
held the Son to be a creature created by the Father, so they are 
said to have taught that the Spirit was created by the Son, and 
hence called Him κτίσμα κτίσματος, the creature of a creature.? 


1 See the account of these heretics, held under Damasus at Rome decreed 
Art. 1. § 1.; and the authorities referred εἰ τις εἶποι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ποιῆμα 7 
to in the notes. See also Pearson, On διὰ τοῦ Yiod γεγενῆσϑαι ἀνάϑεμα ἔστω. 
the Creed, Art. vi11. p. 822, note. Suicer, Apud Theodor. 1. v. c. 11. See Pear- 
11. p. 774. son, On the Creed, p. 816, note. Suicer, 

2 Τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα κτίσμα κτίσματος φά- as above ; and the account given, Art. 1. 
ow εἶναι. Epiphan. Her. τἰχτχ. ὅθ, p. ὃ 1. See also Lardner’s Works, 1v. pp 
778, Colon. ; Suicer, 11. p. 775. Asynod 113, 114. 


i a ee a 


120 OF THE HOLY GHOST. 


Macedonius especially was considered the head of the Pneumato- 
machi, or impugners of the Divinity of the Spirit, being reckoned 
among the semi-Arians, orthodox about the person of the Son, but 
a believer in the creation of the Holy Ghost. He is said to have 
called the Holy Spirit the servant or minister of God.1_ This her- 
esy of Macedonius was condemned by the- second general council 
held at Constantinople, a. p. 381, which added to the Nicene Creed 
after the words, ““ And in the Holy Ghost,” the following, viz. : 
“The Lord, and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, 
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glo- 
rified, who spake by the prophets.” is 

Of the fathers, Origen and Lactantius have been charged with 
unsound doctrines concerning the Holy Ghost. 

It is not easy to arrive at a just conclusion concerning the 
statements of Origen, owing to the fierce disputes which arose 
concerning them, the obscurity, and the mutilated condition of his 
. writings. He has been accused of questioning whether, as “all 
things were made by” the Son, so the Holy Spirit may have been 
included in “all things,” and therefore created by the Son. The 
accusation, however, appears to be unjust, and to have been 
grounded on some inaccuracy of language and obscurity of rea- 
soning, not on really heretical statements.” 

Jerome more than once charges Lactantius, with virtually deny- 
ing the Personality of the Holy Spirit by referring His operation, 
through a Jewish error, to the Person of the Father or of the 
Son ;* an heretical belief, which, he says, prevailed among many. 


[Art. V. 


1 Suicer, 11. p. 774. 

3 The book in which Origen is espe- 
cially accused of having spoken _blas- 
phemy concerning the Spirit of God is 
the first book of the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν (De 
Principiis), ἐν ᾧ πλεῖστα βλασφημεῖ, τὸν 
μὲν Ὑἱὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς πεποιῆσϑαι λέγων, 
τὸ δὲ ΠΙνεῦμα ὑπὸ τοῦ Yiod. Photius, Bis. 
lioth. cod. viij. We have this book only 
in the translation of Rufinus, who in his 
prologue to it says that he has omitted 
parts of the book, which had been foisted 
into it by heretics, and supplied the omis- 
sions from other portions of the genuine 
works of Origen. Jerome (Lib. 1. Adv. 
Rufinum) accuses Rufinus of having mis- 
translated Origen, and he himself under- 
took to give a new translation. All but 
fragments of the latter are lost. If Ruf 
finus has given at all a fair representa- 
tion of his author, the following would 
show that Origen cannot have been 
very heretical concerning the Holy 
Ghost: “Ne quis sane existimet nos ex 
eo quod diximus Spiritum Sanctum solis 
sanctis prestari, Patris vero et Filii bene- 


ficia vel inoperationes pervenire ad bonos 
et malos, justos et injustos, pretulisse 
per hoc Patri et Filio Spiritum Sanctum, 
vel majorem ejus per hoc asserere digni- 
tatem: quod utique valde inconsequens 
est. Proprietatem namque gratie ejus 
operisque descripsimus. Porro autem 
nihil in Trinitate majus minusve dicen- 
dum est, quum unius Divinitatis Fons 
Verbo ac Ratione sua teneat universa, 
Spiritu vero oris sui que digna sunt 
sanctificatione sanctificet, sicut in Psal- 
mo Scriptum est Verbo Domini coli firmati 
sunt et Spiritu Oris Ejus omnis virtus eorum.” 
— Origen. De Principiis, Lib. 1. cap. 3, 
num. 7. Comp, num. 2. 

8“ Hoe ideo quia multi per imperitiam 
Scripturarum, quod et Firmilianus in oc- 
tavo ad Demetrianum epistolarum libro 


. facit, asserunt Spiritum Sanctum sepe 


Patremn sepe Filium nominari; et cum 
rspicue in Trinitate credamus, tertiam 
rsonam auferentes non substantiam 

Ejus esse volunt, sed nomen.” — Hieron. 

In Epist. ad Galatas, eap. tv. Tom. tv. 

1. p. 268. See also Lardner, rv. p. 


Src. L] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 121 


One of the strange forms which heresy is said to have assumed 
was that which is attributed to Montanus, namely, that he gave 
himself out to be the Paraclete, 7. 6. the Spirit of God. Nay, it is 
even said that he had his disciples baptized in his own name, 
as the third Person of the blessed Trinity ;+ though it appears to 
be doubtful whether Montanus really meant that he was an incar- 
nation of the Spirit, or only that the Spirit dwelt more fully in him 
than in any former man.2 Indeed, to some it appears that the 
Montanists were in their creed Sabellians, and that they thought 
that the Spirit which animated Montanus was but an emanation 
from God.? 

A denial of the Personality of the Holy Ghost, and a belief 
that He was but an influence or energy, seem to have been gen- 
eral in later times with the Socinians, and may be considered as 
a necessary consequence of a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity 
in general. 

But the most celebrated controversy which has ever arisen 
concerning the Holy Ghost was that which had reference to His 
Procession, and which led to the famous schism between the 
Eastern and Western churches. 

The Council of Constantinople (a. Ὁ. 381) had inserted in the 
Creed of the Council of Nice (a. Ὁ. 825) the words “ proceeding 
from the Father”? (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον) ; and the Council 
of Ephesus (a. p. 431) had decreed that no addition should be 
made to that creed thenceforth. Accordingly, the Greek fathers 
uniformly declared their belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost 
from the Father. 

The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, having regard to those 
passages of Scripture which speak of the Spirit of Christ, and of 
the Spirit as sent by the Son, continually spoke of the Holy Ghost 
as proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Greek fathers, 
indeed, were willing to use language approximating to the words of 


; See Bingham, Z. A. Book x1. ch. 111. 


2 Mosheim, Cent. 11. pt. 11. ch. v. § 23; 
also, De Rebus ante Constantinum M. Sec. 
τι. ὃ 67; Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, 2d Edit. 
Ἢ 22; Lardner’s Heretics, Book 11. ch. 


Manes, Mohammed, and others beside 
them, have professed to be the Paraclete 
promised by Christ to His disciples. 
Whether by the Paraclete they meant 
the Holy Ghost is questionable. 

ὃ See Bingham, as above. 

*« Spiritus quoque Sanctus cum pro- 


16 


cedit a Patre et Filio, non separatur a 
Patre, non separatur a Filio.” —Ambros. 
De Sp. S.c. x. “ Non possumus dicere 
quod Spiritus Sanctus et a Filio non pro- 
cedat, neque enim frustra Spiritus et 
Patris et Filii Spiritus dicitur.”—August. 
De Trin. Lib. tv. cap. 20. See Pearson, 
p. $24, note. St. Augustine, more clearly 
and fully than any before him, asserted 
the procession from the Son. Hence the 
modern Greeks charge him with having 
invented it. See Waterland, Works, 1v. 
p. 246. Oxf. 1823. 


oe 


122 OF THE HOLY GHOST. 


the Latin Fathers, but shrank from directly asserting the procession 
from the Son. Thus they spoke of the Holy Ghost as “ the Spirit 
of Christ, proceeding from the Father, and receiving of the Son.’’} 
And it has been inferred that many of the earlier Greek writers 
held, as did the Latins, a real procession from both the Father 
and the Son, although they were not willing to express themselves 
otherwise than in the words of the Creed. 

Theodoret, in the fifth century, appears to have been the first 
of the Greeks who brought the question out into bold relief ; for, 
taking offence at some expressions of Cyril, who speaking of the 
Spirit had used the words ἴδιον τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, he declares, 
that, if by such an expression he meant “ that the Spirit derived 
His Being either from or through the Son, then the saying was to 
be rejected as blasphemous and profane ; for we believe the Lord 
when He saith, ‘the Spirit which proceedeth from the Father,’ 
and we believe St. Paul in like manner saying, ‘we have not re- 
ceived the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God.’ ” ? 
St. Cyril, not directly replying to Theodoret, at least not entering 
fully upon the doctrine of the Procession, there appears to have 
been little controversy about it in the East, until attention was 
roused to the subject by the conduct of some portions of the West- 
ern Church. ‘The question having been for some time discussed, 
whether or not the Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as from 
the Father, the Churches of France and Spain not only asserted 
such to be the case, but actually added to the Creed of Constanti- 
nople the words Filioque (“‘and the Son”), and so chanted the 
Creed in their Liturgies with the clause Credimus et in Spiritwm 
Sanctum Dominum et vivificatorem, ex Patre Filioque procedentem.® 
In the early part of the ninth century Pope Leo III. was appeal- 
ed to, and decreed in a Synod held at Aquisgranum, that no 


* | Ae. 


1 Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, Πνεῦμα ἸΠατρὸς ἐκπο- 
ρευόμενον. καὶ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ λάμβανον. 

han. Heres. τὐχιχ. Tom. 1. p. ¥ 
Colon. 1682. See Suicer, τ. 1070; Pear- 
son, p. 824, note. Similar or stronger 
language used on this subject may be 
seen in the following: Ei τοίνυν παρὰ τοῦ 
Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ, φησι ὃ 
Κύριος, λήψεται, ὅν τρόπον οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν 
Πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ Ὑἱὸς, οὐδὲ τὸν Tidy εἰ μὴ ὁ 
Πατὴρ * οὕτως Mone λέγειν (f. τολμῶ συλ- 
λέγειν) οὐδὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα εἰ μὴ ὁ Ὑἱὸς ἐξ οὗ 
λαμβάνει, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐξ ob ἐκπορεύεται. 
Epiph. Heres. txx1v. 10, Tom. 1. p. 898, 
Colon. — ζωὴ δὲ ὅλος ὁ Θεὸς, οὐκοῦν ζωὴ ἐκ 
ζωῆς ὁ Ὑἱὸς, ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήϑεια καὶ ἡ 
ζωὴ, τὸ δὲ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα rap’ ἀμφοτέρων, 
Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πνεύματος. Hares. ΤΧΧΙΥ͂. 7, 
Tom. 1. p. 895. 


2 Pearson, On the Creed, p. 825, note. 
Suicer, 1. 1070. 

3In very early Latin Councils this ad- 
dition of the Filioque is made: as in the 
first Council of Bracara, a. p. 411, and in 
the third Council of Toledo, a. p. 589, 
where the Constantinopolitan Creed is 
recited. (Bingham, Bk. x. ch. rv. § 16.) 
The Council of Toledo was that which 
first ordered the Constantinopolitan 
Creed to be used in the Liturgy of the 
Spanish Church. (Bingham, ibid. § 7.) 
With re to the insertion of the words 
Filioque in the Confession of the Council 
of Bracara, it now appears that they are 
not genuine, but foisted into it in later 
times. See Waterland, Hist. a’ Athan 
Creed, Works, tv. p. 188, note. 


Sxc. 1.] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 128 


such addition ought to be made to the creeds of the Church. Nay, 
so important did he deem a strict adherence to the symbols in their 
original form, that he caused the Constantinopolitan Creed, in the 
very words in which it had been penned at the council, to be 
graven on silver plates, both in Latin and Greek, and so to be 
publicly set forth in the Church.* 

Afterwards, however, Pope Nicolas the First had a violent 
controversy with Photius, patriarch of Constantinople. Ignatius, 
who had been deposed from that see, and succeeded by Photius, 
appealed to Pope Nicolas, who took the part of Ignatius, and 
excommunicated Photius; who in his turn assembled a council at 
Constantinople, in 866, and excommunicated Nicolas. Subse- 
quently Ignatius having been recalled by Basilius the Macedonian, 
and Photius degraded, a council was held at Constantinople (A.D. 
869), which is called by the Latins the eighth C&cumenical 
Council, in which the controversies between the Eastern and 
Western Churches were hushed for the time. Among the subjects 
which had been introduced into this unhappy discussion, the most 
prominent was the question concerning the Procession of the Holy 
Ghost; Photius charging the Latins with having adulterated the 
Creed of Constantinople by the addition of Filioque, and the Latins 
vigorously defending themselves concerning this and other charges.? 

On the death of Ignatius, a. Ὁ. 878, Photius was again restored 
to the patriarchal see, when John the Eighth was Bishop of Rome. 
On his accession he again renewed the controversies with the ~ 
West; and in a council held at Constantinople, a. Ὁ. 879 (owned 
by the Greeks as the eighth Gicumenical), it was declared that 
the addition of Filioque should be taken away. [260 the Philos- 
opher afterwards again deposed Photius, and confined him in ap 
Armenian convent, where he died in the year 891.8 

The contest between the Churches, now suspended for a time, 
was revived in the year 1053, by Michael Cerularius, patriarch of 
Constantinople. Between him and Leo IX., Bishop of Rome, a 
violent contest arose, both on the subject of their respective juris- 
dictions and concerning the doctrines in dispute between the two 
great branches of the Church. Cerularius wrote, in his own name 
and that of Leo Bishop of Achrida, a strong letter to John Bishop 
of Trani in Apulia, charging the Latins with various errors. Leo 

1 Pearson, On the Oreed, p. 825; Mo- was a principal champion of the Latins 
sheim, Cent. rx. pt. 11. ch. 111. § 18. in this dispute. 

2 The famous Ratramn, whose book on 3 Mosheim, Cent. rx. pt. 11. ch. 111. 


the Eucharist exercised so important an §§ 27-32 ; Pearson, as above. 
influence on the English Reformation, 


124 OF THE HOLY GHOST. [Arr. V. 


therefore summoned a Council at Rome, and excommunicated the 
Greek Churches. Constantine Monomachus, the emperor, in vain 
strove to quench the flame of discord; and though legates were 
sent from Rome to Constantinople, instead of endeavouring to 
allay the strife, they solemnly excommunicated Cerularius, Leo 
of Achrida, and their adherents, who, in their turn, in a public 
- council excommunicated them. Thus arose the schism between 
the Eastern and Western Churches, which has never since been 
healed. 





ΒΈΟΤΙΟΝ II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


HE first I. and second II. heads of this Article concern the 
Divinity and the Personality of the Holy Ghost. 
Both these were treated under the First Article, and it is not 
necessary to repeat the arguments here. It may be enough to 
add that among the strongest passages of Scripture in proof of 
these doctrines will be found the following: — 
Divinity. Matt. xii. 82. Acts v. 8, 4. 1 Cor. iii, 16; com- 
pare 1 Cor. vi. 19. . 

Personality. Matt. xii. 82; xxviii. 19. John xiv. 16, 26; 
xvi. 8, 138. Acts νυ. 8, 4. Rom. viii. 26. 1 Cor. xii. 11. 
Eph. iv. 30. 1 John νυ. 7. 


III. The third division of the subject is concerning the Proces- 
sion of the Holy Ghost; the Article, after the Latin versions of the 
Constantinopolitgn Creed, and the Creed of St. Athanasius, assert- 
ing that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. 

The distinction between the three Persons in the Godhead was 
set forth in treating on the First Article. The relation of God the 
Son to God the Father, how that from all eternity God the Son 
derived His being from God the Father, by a proper but ineffable 
generation, was set forth in the rrrst part of the Second Article. 

Now, whereas it is certain that the Scriptures ever speak of 
the Second Person of the Trinity as the Son of God, and as begot- 
ten of the Father, so it is equally certain that they speak of the 
Spirit as coming forth or proceeding from the Father, but never 
as begotten of Him. The early Christians, observing this distine- 

1 Mosheim, Cent. x1. pt. 11, ch. 111. §§ 9-11, 


Sec. 11. OF THE HOLY GHOST. 125 


tion, cautiously adhering to the language of inspiration, and striv- 
ing to imbibe the notions conveyed by it, ever taught that it was 
peculiar to the Father to be underived and unbegotten; to the 
Son, to be begotten; to the Holy Ghost, to be proceeding.? 

1. That the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father scarcely 
needs to be proved. 

In Matt. x. 20, He is called “the Spirit of the Father.” In . 
Rom. viii. 11, He is called “the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus 
from the dead.’’ In John xiv. 26, “‘the Comforter, which is the 
Holy Ghost,” is promised, as to be sent “ by the Father in Christ’s 
name.”’ In John xv. 26, we read of the “Comforter . .. even 
the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father.” Compare 
also Matt. iii. 16. Acts v. 9. 1Cor.ii. 10, 11, 14; iii. 16 ; vi. 19, 
&c. Accordingly, there never has been any doubt, among those 
who admit the doctrine of the Trinity, that as the Son is begotten 
of the Father, so the Spirit proceeds from the Father. 

2. But though the doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from 
the Father is thus unquestionable, it has been seen, that the 
Greeks doubted the propriety of saying that the Holy Spirit pro- 
ceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father. They doubted 
it, as it seems, merely because in John xv. 26, it is said “ that the 
Spirit of truth proceedeth from the Father,” and there is no passage 
of Scripture, which, in the same express terms, says that the Spirit 
proceedeth from the Son. 

Yet if we except this one expression of John xv. 26, every other 
expression whatsoever, from which we infer that the Spirit pro- 
ceedeth from the Father, is used in like manner concerning His 
relation to the Son. For example : — 

(1) Is He called “the Spirit of God,” “the Spirit of the Fa- 
ther,” “the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus?”’ In like manner 
He is called “ the Spirit of Christ,” ‘ the Spirit of the Son,” “ the 
Spirit of Jesus Christ.” Thus we read, Rom. viii. 9, “ If any man 
have not the Spirit of Christ ;” where it is evident the Apostle 
means the Holy Spirit of God spoken of in the preceding sentence. 
Gal. iv. 6, “ God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son.” Phil. i. 
19, “ The supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” 1 Pet. i. 11, 
* The Spirit of Christ,”’ which was in the prophets. 

And so surely is this the case, that the Greeks themselves were 
even willing to call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son; con- 
fessing that ‘*‘ He proceedeth from the Father, and is the Spirit of 


1 Ἴδιον Πατρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησίω, Ὑἱοῦ δὲ Greg. Naz. Orat. xx1u1. Tom. τ. p. 422 
ἡ γέννησις, Πνεύματος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεμψις. --- Colon. Suicer, 1. p. 1069. 


126 OF THE HOLY GHOST. 


the Son.” And hence many of our divines, and even divines of 
the Church of Rome, have concluded that their difference on this 
point from the Western Church was but in modo loquendi, in man- 
ner of speech, not in fundamental truth.! 

(2) But, again, do we infer that the Spirit proceedeth from 
the Father, because He is sent by the Father, and is breathed 
forth into the prophets by the Father? Still, in like manner, we 
read that the same Spirit is sent by the Son, and was by Him 
breathed upon His Apostles. Thus He says Himself, John xv. 26, 
“ The Comforter, whom I will send unto you from the Father.” 
John xvi. 7, “ If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto 
you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you.” And in John 
xx. 22, after He had risen from the dead, ““ He breathed on them, 
and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” 

Now, our principal reasons for concluding that the Spirit of God 
proceeds from God the Father are these: namely, that He is called 
the Spirit of the Father; that as the Father sends the Son, who is 
begotten of Him, so He sends the Spirit; and that He sends Him 
especially in that manner which in Scripture is called inspiring 
or breathing forth. From all this we conclude that, like as the 
Son is begotten, so the Spirit proceedeth of the Father. Yet the 
Scriptures set forth the relation of the Spirit to the Son, in all 
these. respects, in the very same language in which they set forth 
the relation of the Spirit to the Father. Hence we conclude, that, 
as the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, so He proceeds from the 
Son” And though we may question the wisdom of adding the 
words Filioque to a Creed drawn up by a General Council, without 


fArr. V. 


1 Laud, Conference with Fisher, Ὁ. 19 
(Oxf. 1839), . 9, who quotes Damas- 
cene (Lib. 1. Fid. Orth. c. 11) as saying, 
“Non ex Filio, sed Spiritum Filii esse 
dicimus.” 

2 “Nec possumus dicere quod Spiritus 
Sanctus et a Filio non procedat: neque 
enim frustra idem Spiritus et Patris et 
ἘΠῚ: Spiritus dicitur. Nec video quid 
aliud significare voluerit, cum sufflans in 
faciem discipulorum ait, Accipite Spiritum 
Sanctum. Neque enim flatus ille corpo- 
reus, cum sensu corporaliter tangendi 
pe gs ex corpore, substantia Spiritus 

ancti fuit, sed demonstratio per con- 
προ significationem, non tantum a 

atre sed et a Filio procedere Spiritum 
Sanctum,” &c. — August. De Trinitat. 
Lib. rv. cap. xx. Tom. vir1. p. 829. “De 
utroque autem procedere sic docetur, 
quia ipse Filius ait, De Patre it. Et 
cum resurrexit a mortuis et apparuisset 


discipulis suis, insufflavit et ait, Accipite 
Spiritum Sanctum, ut Eum etiam de Se 
procedere ostenderet. Et ipsa est Virtus 
que de Illo exibat, sicut legitur in Evan- 
gelio, et sanabat omnes.”— Ibid. Lib. xv. 
cap. XXVI. p. . See also, De Civitate 
Dei, Lib, x1. c. xx1v. Tom. vu. p. 290; 
where S. Augustine, showing that the 
Holy Spirit is a Person, doubts if He can 
be called the goodness of the Father and 
the Son; but observing that the Father 
is a Spirit and holy, and the Son is a 
Spirit and holy, and yet the Third Per- 
son of the Trinity is called the Holy 
Spirit of the Father and of the Son, he 
supposes that that Third Person may be 
called the Spirit both of the Father and 
of the Son, and the Holiness both of the 
Father and of the Son, but yet a sub- 
es Holiness, consubstantial with 
bo . 


Sec. II.]* 


OF THE HOLY GHOST. 


127 


the authority of a General Council; we yet do not question the 
truth of the doctrine conveyed by these words, and which, we 
believe, was implicitly held by the divines of the Eastern Church, 
though they shrank from explicit exposition of it in terms. 


1 The great objection which the East- 
ern Church makes to the Filioque, is, 
that it implies the existence of two ἀρχαὶ 
in the Godhead : and, if we believe in δύο 
ἄναρχοι, we, in effect, believe in two 
Gods. The unity of the Godhead can 
only be maintained by acknowledging 
the Father to be the sole ᾿Αρχὴ or Πηγὴ 
ϑεοτῆτος, who from all eternity has com- 


municated His own Godhead to His co- 
eternal and consubstantial Son and Spirit. 
This reasoning is generally true. But, 
as the doctrine of the Procession of the © 
Spirit from the Father and the Son pre- 
supposes the eternal Generation of the 
Son from the Father, it does not follow 
that that doctrine impugns the Catholic 
belief in the Mia ᾿Αρχῆ. 


— = π᾿ , — Fs ἜΜ ae 


ARTICLE VL. 


----.. 


Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures 
Sor Salvation. 

Hoty Scripture containeth all things 
necessary to salvation: so that whatso- 
ever is not read therein, nor may be 
proved thereby, is not to be required of 
any man, that it should be believed as an 
article of the Faith, or be thought requi- 
site necessary to salvation. 

In the name of the Holy Scripture we do 
understand those Canonical Books of the 
old and new Testament of whose author- 
ity was never any doubt in the Church. 


Of the Names and Number of the 
Canonical Books. 


De Divinis Scripturis, fficiant 
paises 


Scriptura sacra continet omnia, que 
ad salutem sunt necessaria, ita, ut quic- 
quid in ea nec legitur, neque inde probari 
potest, non sit a quoquam rot a aa ut 
tanquam articulus Fidei credatur, aut ad 
salutis necessitatem requiri putetur. 

Sacre Scriptura’ nomine, eos Canoni- 
cos libros veteris, et novi Testamenti in- 
telligimus, de quorum authoritate in Ec- 
clesia nunquam dubitatum est. 


De Nominibus et Numero librorum sacre 
Canonice Scripture Veteris Testamenti. 





Genesis. The Second Book 
Exodus. of Chronicles. 
Leviticus. The First Book of 
Numbers. Esdras. 
Deuteronomy. The Second Book 
Joshua. of Esdras. 
Judges. The Book of Es- 
Ruth. ther. 
The First Book of | The Book of Job. 

Samuel. The Psalms. 
The Second Book | The Proverbs. 

of Samuel. Ecclesiastes, or 
The First Book of Preacher. 

Kings. Cantica, or Songs 
The Second Book of Solomon. 

of Kings. Four Prophets the 
The First Book of greater. 

Chronicles. Twelve Prophets 

the less. 





Genesis. Secundus Liber Pa- 
Exodus. ralipomen. 
Leviticus. Primus Liber Es- 
Numeri. dre. 
Deuteron. Secundus Liber Es- 
Josur. dre. 
Judicum. Liber Hester. 
uth. Liber Job. 
Prior Liber Samu- | Psalmi. 
elis. Proverbia. 
Secundus Liber Sa- | Ecclesiastes vel 
muelis. ἢ Concionator. 
Prior Liber Regum. | Cantica Salomonis. 
Secundus Liber Re-|1V Prophete ma- 
gum. jores. 
Prior Liber Parali- | XII Prophets mi- 
pom. nores. 


Alios autem libros (ut ait Hieronymus) 
legit quidem Ecclesia, ad exempla vite, 


And the other books (as Hierome 
saith) the Church doth read for example 
of life and instruction of manners; but 
yet doth it not apply them to establish 


et formandos mores : illos tamen ad dog- 
mata confirmanda non adhibet, ut sunt. 


any doctrine. 


uch are these following : — 


The Third Book of | 
Esdras. 

The Fourth Book 
of Esdras. 

The Book of To- 


bias. 

The Book of Ju- 
dith. 

The rest of the 
Book of Esther. 


The Book of Wis- 
dom. 





Jesus the Son of 
Sirach. 


Baruch the Proph- 


et. 

The Song of the 
Three Children. 

The Story of Su- 
sanna. 

Of Bel and the 
Dragon. 

The Prayer of Ma- 
nasses. 

The First Book of 
Maccabees. 

The Second Book 
of Maccabees. 


All the books of the new Testament, 


as they are commonl 


received, we do 


receive and account them Canonical. 





Tertius Liber Es- ) Baruch Propheta. 
dre. Canticum ἐτίμα 
Quartus Liber Es-| Puerorum, 
dree. Historia Susanne. 
Liber Tobie. De Bei et Dracone. 
Liber Judith. Oratio Manasses. 
Reliquum Libri | Prior Lib. Macha- 
Hester. beorum. 
Liber Sapientie. Secundus Liber Ma- 
Liber Jesu filii Si-; chabeorum. 
rach. 


Novi Testamenti omnes libros (ut vul- 
go recepti sunt) recipimus, et habemus 
pro Canonicis. 


Art. VL] THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES. 129 


HIS is the first Article of the Church which can be called 
controversial. In some respects, it might have seemed natural 
tu have put it as the first Article; as in the Helvetic Confession 
the first Article is De Seriptura Sancta, vero Dei Verbo. But our 
reformers wisely put forth, in the beginning of their confession of 
faith, those doctrines on which the Church universal for fifteen 
centuries had agreed, and which are the foundations of the Chris- 
tian faith. Accordingly the first five Articles treat of the Trinity, 
the Incarnation, the Redemption of the world, the Sanctification of 
Christians, and the Judgment of all men. Unity on these points 
was of old times considered to constitute Catholic Christianity ; 
and by declaring her orthodoxy on these Catholic doctrines, the 
Church of England, in the very front of her confessions, declares 
herself orthodox and Catholic. 

This done in the first five Articles, she, in the next three, 
treats of the Rule of Faith, the Scriptures, and the Creeds deduced 
from them. 

The present Article, as it stood if the forty-two Articles of © 
1552, lacked all the concluding part concerning the Canon of 
Scripture and the Apocrypha, and treated only of the Sufficiency 
of Scripture for Salvation. The latter part was added in 1562. 
The original Article also contained a clause which was omitted in 

‘1562. After the words, “whatsoever is neither read therein, nor 
may be proved thereby,” the words were added, “ although tt be 
sometime received of the godly, and profitable for an order and come- 
liness, yet no man ought to be constrained to believe it as an 
article of faith,” ἄς. 

As the Article now stands, it treats of several distinct points, 
namely, Scripture and Tradition, the Canon of Scripture, the Apoc- 
rypha. On all these points demonstration and history are inti- 
mately connected; history in this case being a material part of 
demonstration. It will therefore be better not to separate them. 
In the following sections then I propose to consider, — 

First. The Sufficiency of Scripture for Salvation ; SEconDLy. 
The Canon of Scripture; Turrpty. The true value of Tradition, 
and the reading of the Apocrypha. * 

17 


130 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL . 


Sxecrion I.—THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE FOR 
SALVATION. 


HAT we may see the force of the words of the Article on this 
important subject, it will be necessary to consider what opin- 
ions were opposed by it. Those opinions were the doctrines of 
the Church of Rome concerning Scripture and Tradition. It 
will be well therefore to begin by setting the statements of the 
Church of Rome and those of the Church of England one against 
the other; and when we see wherein we differ, we may then pro- 
ceed to show which is in the right. 

Now the decrees of the Council of Trent sufficiently express 
the doctrines of the Church of Rome. In that Council certain 
Articles, professedly taken from the writings of the Lutheran 
divines on the subject of Scripture, were discussed in the third 
session. And first, the fathers of the Council agreed to condemn 
the opinion ‘that all articles of the Christian faith, necessary to 
be believed, are contained in the Holy Scriptures, and that it is 
sacrilege to hold the oral Tradition of the Church to be of equal 
authority with the old and new Testaments.” ! The formal decree 
of the Council was drawn up in the fourth session, in the year 
1546, shortly after the death of Luther, and six years before the 
putting forth of the forty-two Articles of our own Church in 1552. 
This decree declares that “the truth is contained’in the written 
books, and in the wnwritten traditions, which, having been received 
by the Apostles, either from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from 
the dictates of the Holy Spirit, were handed down even to us;” 
and that the Council * receives and venerates with equal feeling of ' 
piety and reverence all the books of the old and new Testament, 
since one God was the Author of them both, and also the tradi- 
tions, relating as well to faith as to morals, as haying, either from 
the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the dictation of the Holy 
Ghost, been preserved by continuous succession in the Catholic 
Church,” ? 

Exactly corresponding with this decree of the Council are the 


1 Sarpi, Hist. of the Council of Trent, 


gelii in Ecclesia conservetur: quod 
Senneee by Brent. London, 1676, p. 


promissum ante per prophetas in Scrip- 
turis sanctis Dominus noster, Jesus 


2 « Sacrosancta cecumenica et generalis 
Tridentina Synodus, in’ Spiritu Sancto 
legitime congregata, presidentibus in ea 
eisdem tribus Apostolice sedis legatis, 
hoe sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, 
ut sublatis erroribus, puritas ipsa Evan- 


Christus, Dei Filius, proprio ore primum 
promulgavit, deinde per suos Apostolos 
tanquam fontem omnis salutaris veritatis 
et morum discipline, omni creature pre- 
dicari jussit; perspiciens hanc veritatem 
et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis αἱ 


Sec. L] FOR SALVATION. 131 


statements of the great Roman Catholic divines. For example, 
Bellarmine says, “‘ The controversy between us and the ‘heretics 
consists in two things. The first is, that we assert that in Scrip- 
ture is not expressly contained all necessary doctrine, whether 
concerning faith or morals, and therefore that, besides the written 
word of God, there is moreover needed the unwritten word, 7. 6. 
Divine and Apostolical Tradition. But they teach, that all things 
necessary for faith and morals are contained in the Scriptures, 
and that therefore there is no need of the unwritten word.” 1 

Now these statements are not easily misunderstood. The 
Church of Rome, both in her Council, and by the mouth of her 
most eminent divines, asserts that Scripture does not contain all 
that is necessary for faith and morals; but that there is need of a 
traditional doctrine, an unwritten word, which is handed down by 
unbroken tradition in the Church, and which she, the Church of 
Rome, esteems with the same feelings of piety and reverence with 
which she receives the Holy Scriptures. It is not merely an Her- 
meneutical Tradition, 7. 6. certain doctrines handed down from 
early times, which are useful for clearing up and explaining obscu- 
rities in Holy Writ; nor is it an Ecclesiastical Tradition, 7. 6. Tra- 
dition concerning Church discipline, rites and ceremonies ; but it is 
a traditional revelation concerning doctrine, in matters of faith and 
morals, which is not to be found in Scripture, and which is equally 
certain, equally Divine, and equally to be embraced and reverenced 
with Scripture itself. Scripture and tradition are parallel, equal, 
and equally venerable sources of doctrine; and one without the 
other is not sufficient for salvation. 

Such being the statement of the Church of Rome, we may 
the better understand the statement of the Church of England. 
Her statement is, as expressed in the Article of 1552, that, how- 
ever traditions may be “sometimes received by the faithful as 
godly, and profitable for order and comeliness,” yet ‘Scripture 


sine scripto traditionibus, que ab ipsius 
Christi ore et Apostolis accepte, Spiritu 
Sancto dictante, quasi per manus tradite 
ad nos usque pervenerunt; Orthodoxo- 
rum patrum exempla secuta, omnes li- 
bros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti, 
cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec- 
non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad 
mores pertinentes, tamquam vel ore tenus 
a Christo vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, e¢ 
continua successione in Ecclesia Catholica 
conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia 
suscipit ac veneratur.” — Sess. rv. Can. 1. 
Cone. xiv. 746. 


1 Bellarmin. De Verbo Dei non Scripto, 
Lib. 1v. cap. 111. “‘ Controversia igitur in- 
ter nos et hereticos in duobus consistit. 
Primum est, quod nos asserimus, in 
Scripturis non contineri expresse totam 
doctrinam necessariam sive de fide sive . 
de moribus ; et proinde preter Verbum 
Dei scriptum, requiri etiam Verbum 
Dei non scriptum, id est, divinas et Apos- 
tolicas traditiones. At ipsi docent, in 
Scripturis omnia contineri ad fide met 
mores necessaria, et proinde non esse 
opus ullo Verbo non scripto.” 


432 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


containeth all things necessary to salvation;” and no man ought 
“to be constrained to believe as an article of faith, or repute requi- 
site to the necessity of salvation, whatever is neither read therein, 
nor may be proved thereby.” 

The degree of value which the Church of England has assigned 
to Tradition, which, she said, in the forty-two Articles, was “ some- 
times received by the faithful as godly, and profitable for order,” 
we shall see in the third section. Here we have to show, that, as 
regards articles of faith, and as to necessity of salvation, nothing 
ought to be required of any man “which is not read in Serip- 
ture, nor may be proved thereby.” : 

Scripture, according to the Church of England, rightly inter- 
preted, contains all that is necessary to save the soul. From it, 
by fair and logical inference, may be deduced everything which 
ought to be imposed as an article of faith. It will be seen, here- 
after, that she does not despise nor underrate the light of learning, 
nor the light of antiquity, but that, as the ground of appeal, she 
maintains the supremacy, and the sole supremacy, of the written 
word of God.! . 

Now in proving the soundness of the Anglican, in opposition 
to the Romish position, we may proceed in the following order. 
We may prove—I. That Scripture is in favour of it ;—TII. 
That Reason is in favour of it;—III. That the Primitive 
Fathers are in favour of it. 


I. Scripture is in favour of the doctrine of the Anglican Church, 
namely, that the written word of God is sufficient for salvation, 
containing all necessary articles of faith, and rules of life. 

On most questions this argument is the most conclusive that 
can be brought; but on the Sufficiency of Scripture we are not 
so likely to find Scripture speaking plainly, as on many other 
points. It does indeed bear witness to itself, and yet its witness is 
true. But though both parties have appealed to it, yet neither 
party have been satisfied, that, on this particular point, its high 
authority will exhaust the subject. 

1. To take, first of all, the arguments which have been alleged 
from Scripture, as against its own sufficiency: we read, that our 


1.“ Untoa Christian man there can be truth nor doctrine necessary for our jus- 
nothing either more necessary or profit- tification and everlasting salvation, but 
able than the knowledge of Holy Berip- that is, or may be, drawn out of that foun- 
ture, forasmuch as in it is contained tain and well of truth.” — Beginning of 
God’s true Word, setting forth Hisglory the Homily on Holy Scripture. 
and also man’s duty, and there is no 


Suc. L] FOR SALVATION. | 138 


Lord said to His disciples (John xvi. 12): “I have yet niany 
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” ‘Therefore 
it is inferred that there was need of further instruction, orally 
delivered to the Church, and handed down by tradition, beyond 
what our Lord revealed, whilst on earth. But the true meaning 
of the passage is explained by the next verse, which promises that, 
“when the Spirit of truth was come, He should guide them into 
all truth.” It was to the teaching of the Spirit, by whom the 
Apostles were afterwards inspired, that our Lord bade them look 
forward, for the filling up of what His own personal teaching had 
left deficient. The substance of that teaching of the Spirit, we 
believe, is preserved to us in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, 
and the Apocalypse ; not in unwritten tradition. 

Again, it is said, “ There are also many other things which 
Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, even the 
world could not contain the books that should be written’ (John 
xxi. 25). Therefore Jesus taught many things not set down in 
Scripture: we cannot believe that He taught anything super- 
fluous: therefore there must be something necessary, besides what 
we read in Scripture. Where are we to seek for this? Of course, 
in unwritten tradition. 

To this we reply, that doubtless every word spoken by our 
blessed Lord was most valuable. Many of those words indeed are 
not in Scripture ; no! nor yet in tradition: for it never yet was 
pretended that oral tradition had preserved every word our 
Saviour uttered. So that, if this argument proves anything, it 

‘proves too much; for it proves, not only the insufficiency of 
Scripture, but the insufficiency of Scripture and tradition together. 
What we say is simply, that so much of Christ’s divine teaching, and 
of the teaching of the Spirit to the Apostles, is set down in Scrip- 
ture, as is necessary for salvation, and for the proving of all neces- 
sary articles of faith. It is no argument against this, to say that 
many things, which our Saviour said, are not in Scripture. ᾿ 

The same answer may be given to the argument drawn from 
the fact, that, during the forty days between His resurrection 
and His ascension, our Lord “spake of the things pertaining to 
the kingdom of God” (Acts i. 3). We know, indeed, that His 
speeches then are not set down in Scripture. But we equally 
know that they are not to be found in any other tradition. And 
we do not know that there was anything spoken by Him then, 
which it is necessary to our salvation that we should know, over 
and above what we have recorded in Scripture. 


- 


134 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


It is further urged, that St. Paul cuts short a controversy, not 
by reference to Scripture, but by appeal to the customs of the 
Church (1 Cor. xi. 16): “If any man seem to be contentious, we 
have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.” It was a 
matter of ceremony, namely, that a woman’s head should be cov- 
ered in the house of God; and assuredly the Church of England 
fully admits that “the Church hath power to decree rites and 
ceremonies ”’ (Art. xx.), and that “ whosoever, through his private 
judgment, breaks the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, 
which be not repugnant to the word of God, ought to be rebuked 
openly” (Art. xxx1v.) But this is no proof that doctrines of the 
faith rest on an authority not written. It should be sufficient to 
satisfy any caviller concerning forms, that the Churches of God 
have, or have not, a custom or a form. But it is not likely that 
the Apostle would for doctrine refer to the Church’s customs, 
when he himself was infallibly guided bythe Spirit of God. 

But St. Paul, it is said, actually does refer to ordinances and 
traditions, and forms of words, and a depositum to be guarded ; all 
which are evidently oral traditions of the Church. “ Now I praise 
you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the 
ordinances, as I delivered them to you,” 1 Cor. xi. 2, “O Tim- 
othy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,” 1 Tim. vi. 20. 
** Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, 
in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing, 
which was committed unto thee, (τὴν καλὴν παρακαταθήκην) keep by 
the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us,” 2 Tim. i. 18,14. “The 
things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the 
same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach 
others also,” 2 Tim. ii. 2. From all this it is urged, that the 
Church and the bishops had ordinances intrusted to them, and 
doctrines committed to them, which they were to watch and guard, 
and hand down carefully to others. But all this we readily admit. 
᾿ Timothy was taught by St. Paul: and the doctrine which he had 
so learned was a sacred deposit which he had carefully to guard, 
and to teach to those committed to his care; especially to the 
clergy under him, and the bishops who were to succeed him. Be- 
fore the Scriptures of the new Testament had been written, or at 
least collected, this must have been a most important principle ; 
for so only could the torch of truth be kept alight. And even 
after the new Testament had been written, and was in the hands 
of all men, it was doubtless most important that bishops and 
Churches should be rightly and soundly instructed in the truth 


Sec. I.] FOR SALVATION. 135 


and right meaning of the Scriptures, and should guard themselves 
and their flocks against perverting the truth and falling into error. 
But there is not therefore any reason to apprehend, that Timothy 
or the Church had learned any other doctrines besides those con- 
tained in the holy Scriptures, or that the sacred deposit committed 
to their charge was any other than the aggregate of Christian doc- 
trine, which they had been taught catechetically, and which they 
were to keep from defilement and error by the Holy Ghost which 
dwelleth in us. We well know that the possession of the Scrip- 
tures, as a source of truth and as a final appeal, does not supersede 
the necessity of Christian education, and sound oral instruction in 
the faith: and to every person, nowadays, instructed by Creeds 
and Catechisms in the true doctrine of Christ, it might be said, 
‘Keep that good. thing which was committed unto you;”’ “ Hold 
fast the form of sound words.” Yet all this instruction and this 
sacred deposit may be deducible from Scripture, and virtually 
contained in it. 

But further, it is said that the Thessalonians are actually bid- 
den to “stand fast and hold,the traditions which ye have been 
taught whether by word or our epistle,” 2 Thess. ii. 15. There- 
fore the Apostle bids them attend, not only to Scripture, but to 
tradition also. But the word tradition means properly nothing 
more than something delivered, the doctrine of our faith delivered to 
us. And there being two ways of delivering doctrines to us, 
either by writing or by word of mouth, it signifies either of them’ 
indifferently. ‘+ ‘ παράδοσις, tradition, is the same with δόγμα, doc- 
trine, and παραδιδόναι is the same with διδάσκειν,᾽ say the gramma- 
rians ; and the παραδοθεῖσα πίστις in St. Jude, ‘ the faith once deliv- 
ered,’ is the same which St. Paul explicates by saying, παραδόσεις 
ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε, ‘the traditions,’ that is, ‘the doctrines ye were taught.’ 
And St. Irenzeus (Lib. m1. ch. iv.) calls it a tradition apostolical, 
that ‘Christ took the cup,’ and said, ‘it was His Blood,’ and to 
believe in one God, and in Christ ‘who was born of a Virgin,’ 
was the old tradition ; that is the thing which was delivered, and 
not at first written, ‘which was kept by the barbarians.’”? It 
may be added, that the very words of St. Paul, in the passage now 
alluded to, prove in themselves that tradition, according to him, 
was not necessarily oral tradition, or traditions floating in the 
Church ; for he calls his own Epistles, or the doctrine contained in 
them, tradition, —“ traditions, which you have been taught either 
by word or by our Epistle.” What therefore the Apostle here 

1 Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive from Popery, Part τι. Bk. 1. Sect. 3. 


186 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


enjoins on the Thessalonians is simply, that, as he had taught them 
by preaching, and as he had enjoined them by letter, so they 
should believe and live. This instruction, thus received, was the 
tradition to which he alludes. But it by no means follows, be- 
‘cause, before Scripture was completed, the Apostles gave oral and 
epistolary instruction, to which their hearers were to attend, that 
therefore, after the Scriptures were completed and collected, there 
must, be left, floating about, a stream of traditional truth, which is 
not to be found in those Scriptures, thus completed and collected. 
Before the Scriptures of the new Testament were written, there 
must of course have been need of tradition, or instruction by word 
of mouth; and such instruction coming from inspired Apostles 
was, no doubt, of as much value as what they committed to 
writing. But the question is, whether they delivered anything 
essential to our salvation, which they, or some of them, did not 
subsequently put down in writing, so that it should be carefully 
preserved, and be a constant witness in the Church. Certainly 
neither this, nor any of the before-cited paren) of Scripture, 
prove that they did.! 

Once more, it is said that Christ promised to His Church, 
**The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,’’ Matt. xvi. 18; 
“1 am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” Matt. 
xxviii. 20; “* Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in 
Heaven,” Matt. xviii. 18, ἄς. ; and that these promises prove 
‘that a certain infallibility should reside in the Church, which both 
makes it a sure keeper of the truth, and renders all its traditions 
and decrees of sacred authority. But we may reply, that, even 
if we concede that the whole Church, fully represented, might so 
claim the promise of Christ to be present with it, and to guide it, 
that it should not fall into errors in matters of faith ; yet it follows 
not, that it would be authorized to preserve or to decree any truth 
which cannot be proved from Scripture. Ancient councils settled 
many points of faith, and drew up creeds and confessions ; but 
they professed them to be accordant with, and capable of proof 
from, Scripture. And though the Church is a keeper and a wit- 
ness of Holy Writ, and may expound Scripture for the instruction 
of her children, and in such expositions may look for the promise 


1The passages from Scripture which Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. m1. ; Bp. 
have been quoted in the text are all al- Patrick’s Discourse about Tradition, in the 
leged by Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei non first os ees of Gibson, Preservative 
Scripto, Lib. 1v. Popery, p. 190; Van Mildert’s 
On the proper meaning of the word F moe Lectures, Sermon 11. 
Tradition, see Jer. Taylor as above; 


Sec. 1.1 FOR SALVATION. 187 


of Christ and the guidance of His Spirit ; it by no means follows, 
that she has authority to add to “the faith once delivered to the 
saints,” or to set up any standard of doctrine besides that written 
word of God which is intrusted to her, and to which she is to 
look as the source of all heavenly wisdom and truth. 

2. And here we may dismiss the arguments from Scripture, 
which have been brought to prove that Scripture does not contain 
all doctrine necessary for salvation and godliness. We proceed to 
consider those passages which appear to prove the direct contrary, 
namely, that all things, of necessity to be believed, are contained 
in, or may be deduced from, the written word. 

The following are amongst the texts commonly alleged : — 

“¢Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither 
shall ye diminish aught from it.” Deut. iv. 2. 

«The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Ps. 
xix. 7. 

“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal 
life: and they are they which testify of Me.” John v. 39. 

“From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which 
are able to make thee wise unto salvation. .... All Scripture 
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the 
.man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good 
works.” 2 Tim. iii. 15-17. 

These passages appear to prove the perfection and sufficiency of 
the Scriptures. But it is argued against this inference, that, with 
regard to the first two passages, they speak of God’s command- 
ments and God’s law, whether written or unwritten.! The third 
passage may be, and very likely ought to be, translated, not 
“search,” but “ye search the Scriptures.” And all the passages 
relate to the old Testament, not to the new ; for neither could the 
Jews search the new Testament Scriptures, nor could Timothy 
have learned the new Testament from his childhood; since none 
of the books of the new Testament were then written. If, there- 
fore, these passages prove the sufficiency of Scripture, they prove 
that the old Testament was sufficient without the new, and there- 
fore prove.too much. The passages indeed prove, that all which 
comes from God is perfect, and very necessary for instruction ; but 
do not fully prove that nothing but Scripture is necessary. 


1 ΘΝ afaik τὸ that the ποὺ “ speak,”’ as he renders it, but ΓΙ 
passage from Deut.iv. 2 applies only to ςς ἜΡΡΕΙ, 
the unwritten word : “the word which I ee aa yy poy Nace on 
speak unto you.” The word however is ‘ ἀν ὦ pis 


IV. 
18 


188 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


Another argument is drawn from the following passages : — 

*‘ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order 
a declaration of those things which are most surely believed 
amongst us.... it seemed good to me also.... to write unto 
thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know 
the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.” 
Luke i. 1-4. 

“These are written that ye might: believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life 
through His Name.” John xx. 31. 

These texts do certainly seem to show that the object of 
writing the Gospels was expressly that men might not be left to 
the uncertainty of tradition. Many had taken in hand to set forth 
an account of the Gospel history: St. Luke therefore was moved to 
commit it carefully to writing, that no vague accounts might mis- 
lead Theophilus, but that by the written word he might “ know the 
certainty of those things wherein he had before been catechetically 
instructed.” Very similar to this is the language of St. Peter: “I 
will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these 
things always in remembrance,” 2 Pet. i.15. It is true that these 
three passages only apply to the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, 
and the Epistles of St. Peter, and perhaps with them to the Gospel 
of St. Mark; but they nevertheless give the reasons for writing 
Scripture, and are, as far as they go, a strong presumption against 
the vagueness and uncertainty of oral, and in favour of the cer- 
tainty of written, tradition. 

Again, ignorance and error in religion are traced to ignorance 
of Scripture: “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the 
power of God,” Matt. xxii. 29. The peculiar privilege of the Jews 
is said to be that “to them were committed the oracles of God,” 
Rom. iii. 1, 2. In matters of doubt, all appeals are made to 
Scripture. The Berceans are praised, because they ‘ searched the 
Scriptures daily, whether those things were so,” Acts xvii. 11. So 
under the old Testament it was “ to.the law and to the testimony : 
if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no 
light in them,” Isai. viii. 20; where the law and the testimony 
must mean the Law of Moses, and the testimony of God given by 
the Prophets. 

Lastly, there is special reprobation of all traditions which add 
to Scripture or take from it. The passage in the end of the 
Apocalypse (“If any man shall add unto these things, God shall 
add unto him the plagues that are written in this book,” &c., Rey. 


Sc. 17 FOR SALVATION. 139 


xxii. 18, 19) may indeed apply only to that book itself, and to the 
uncorrupted preservation of its text. But we cannot have read the 
Gospels, without seeing how much those who used Jewish tradi- 
tions are censured and condemned: “ Why do ye transgress the 
commandment of God by your tradition?” ‘In vain they do 
worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” 
Matt. xv. 8, 9, comp. Mark vii. 7-13. It is true, the traditions | 
spoken of were Jewish, not Christian traditions. But the principle 
was much the same. The Pharisees claimed such traditions as 
divine. They professed, that they were the unwritten word of 
God, handed down from the time of Ezra, through the doctors of 
the Law, and the members of the Great Synagogue. They did 
not deny the value of the written word, but added the unwritten 
traditions to it. These they considered, not as corrupting, but as 
completing the truth. Yet our Lord declared that they ‘made 
the word of God of none effect by their tradition ᾿" (Mark vii. 13). 
And thus we may fairly infer that our Lord condemns the general 
principle of making any addition to the written word, by doctrines 
professedly handed down from father to son. We see, at least, 
no difference in principle between the oral traditions of the Jewish, 
and the oral traditions of the Christian Church. . 


1. We come next to show, that reason is in favour of the 
Anglican, in opposition to the Roman rule on this subject. 

1. The English Church does not hold that unwritten truth is 
less true than written truth; and if we could be certain that any 
unwritten doctrine came from Christ and His Apostles, we should 
receive it with the same reverence that we pay to the written 
word. But the reason why we rest our faith upon the written 
word is this: We know that 7¢ came from God; but we have ,no 
certain knowledge that any unwritten tradition did. The former 
we know to be the mid-day light, the other may be but an ignis 
fatuus, and lead us into error. 

And let it once more be clearly understood, that the question 
is not, what value there may be in the testimony of the Early 
Church to certain doctrines of the faith; not, how far early tra- 
ditions may be useful for the interpreting of Scripture ; not, how 
far we may be right to adhere to the primitive example, in matters 
of discipline and ceremony, even those for which we have no 
Scriptural authority; but it is, whether besides, parallel with, 
and independent of the Scripture, there is in the Church a doe- 
trina tradita, a doctrine handed down from Christ or His Apos- 


140 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


tles, of equal authority with Scripture, and demanding equal re- 
spect. 

As has just now been said, when we search for authority in 
favour of any doctrine, we can tell at once where to go, if Serip- 
ture be our rule. But if we have to depend on something besides, 
where must we look? ‘The former rule is contained in a small 
compass, is easily accessible, and with proper assistance may be 
understood. The latter js to be searched for through many folio 
volumes ; is, at last, not certainly to be found; and is at least as 
difficult as Scripture itself to be understood and explained. Or, 
if it be said, that it is not in the writings of the fathers, but in the 
stream of Church tradition, a deposit which was intrusted to the 
Church and has never been lost by her; we can only reply, that 
this is even less certain than traditions which may be searched 
out from ancient writings, and from them proved to have anciently 
existed. ‘Tradition by word of mouth is a thing proverbially un- 
certain. In peculiar conditions of society, or for a short time, it 
may be sufficient for the preservation of truth. But it is evidently 
unfitted for a body like the Catholic Church ; which was to pervade 
all nations, extend throughout all ages, weather the storm of igno- 
rance and barbarism at one time, and bear up against the scorching 
and withering glare of learned infidelity at another. _ 

The very fact that the Scriptures were written, and the history 
of their writing, seem to prove their sufficiency and perfection. 
When first revelation was given to man, men’s lives were so long 
that there was little danger lest the light of truth should be lost. 
Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, were in fact all but con- 
temporaries. Seth the son of Adam lived to within fifteen years 
of the birth of Noah. Tradition therefore may have sufficed for 
them; and yet we have reason to believe, that, even then, the 
faith was much corrupted. Again, the sons of Noah must have 
been contemporary with Abraham, to whom another revelation was 
given ; yet Abraham’s fathers had become idolaters. And in the 
few generations from Abraham to Moses the faith again appears to 
have been corrupted, if not lost; although from the death of Joseph 
to the birth of Moses not seventy years had passed. Thus, when 
the world and the Church were under the most favourable circum- 
stances for preserving tradition of the truth unimpaired, it pleased 
God to leave the world, with occasional revelations indeed, but 
mostly with only traditional knowledge of the truth. Yet, even so, 
such knowledge was soon corrupted, and easily lost. After that, 
God gave a fuller revelation to Moses, and enjoined that it should 


Sec. 11. FOR SALVATION. 141 


be committed to writing; and the book of the Law was deposited 
in the most sacred place of the Sanctuary, and most carefully 
guarded and watched, as of inestimable value. Thenceforward, 
when any great prophet was sent to Israel, though, during his 
lifetime, he orally taught the people, yet his words were ever 
committed to writing, that they might be preserved after his 
death. Nor do we know anything now concerning the teaching 
of any of the prophets, save only what is handed down to us, 
not by oral, but by written, tradition, namely, the Scriptures of 
the old Testament. 

Most similar was the case with the Christian Church. At 
first, whilst our Lord and His Apostles were on earth, their per- 
sonal teaching, and that of those taught by them, might have 
sufficed. Yet, even then, errors and perversions were creeping 
in; and if they had not committed the substance of their teaching 
to writing, the false traditions of the Judaizers, the Cerinthians, or 
the Gnostics, might have come down through the Church, instead 
of the true traditions of the disciples of Christ. But we learn 
from ancient writers, that what the Apostles preached by word of 
mouth they committed, or caused to be committed to writing, lest 
the substance of their preaching should be lost.1. If tradition com- 
mitted to the Church had been sufficient to preserve the truth, 
then the writing of the four Gospels, and of the other parts of the 
new Testament, would have been superfluous. But from the 
known and well-proved insufficiency of the former, the Apostles, 
under the guidance of the Spirit, had recourse to the latter mode 
of insuring a source and a rule of faith. 

“The Apostles at first owned these writings; the Churches 
received them; they transmitted them to their posterity; they 
grounded their faith upon them; they proved their propositions by 
them; by them they confuted heretics; and they made them the 
measure of right and wrong: all that collective body of doctrine, 


1E. g. Mera δὲ τὴν τούτων (i. 6. τοῦ 
Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου) ἔξοδον Μάρκος, ὃ 
μαϑητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς 
τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν 
παραδέδωκε. ---- Ἰτρη. Her. 111. 1. 

So again: “Ηδηο fidem annuntians 
Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per 
Evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum 
qui inseminatus erat hominibus errorem, 
et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nico- 
laite . . . omnia igitur talia cireumscrib- 
ere volens discipulus Domini, et regu- 
lam veritatis constituere in ecclesia. . . 
sic inchoavit in ea que erat secundum 


Evangelium doctrina: In principio erat Al 


Verbum. .. .”— Heres. 111. 11. 
. 


Τοσοῦτον ἐπέλαμψεν ταῖς τῶν ἀκροατῶν 
τοῦ Πετροῦ διανοίαις εὐσεβείας φέγγος, ὡς μὴ 
τῇ εἰσάπαξ ἱκανῶς ἔχειν ἀρκεῖσϑαι ἀκοῇ, μηδὲ 
τῇ ἀγράφῳ τοῦ ϑείου κηρύγματος διδασκαλίᾳ " 
παρακλῆσεσι δὲ παντοίαις Μάρκον, οὗ τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον φέρεται, ἀκόλουϑον ὄντα Πέτρου 
λιπαρῆσαι, ὡς ἄν καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ὑπόμνημα 
τῆς διὰ λόγου παραδοϑείσης αὐτοῖς κατα- 
λείψοι διδασκαλίας" μὴ πρότερόν τε ἀνεῖ- 
ναι ἢ κατεργάσασϑαι τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ταύτῃ 
αἰτίους γενέσϑαι τῆς τοῦ λεγομένου. κατὰ 
Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου γραφῆς. ---- Euseb. H. 
E. u. 15. He gives this account. on 
the authority of Papias and Clemens 
exand. 


142 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. Vi 


of which all Christians collectively made public confessions, and on 
which all their hopes of salvation did rely, were all contained in 
them, and they agreed in no point of faith which is not plainly 
set down in Scripture.” ἢ 

Now Scripture having been thus evidently designed to correct 
the uncertainty and supply the deficiency of tradition, it is un- 
reasonable to suppose that God would have suffered Scripture 
itself, the more certain guide, to be imperfect, and to need the less 
certain guide, tradition, to supply its defects. Yet, if Scripture 
itself does not contain the sum and substance of our religion, and 
all necessary articles of faith, this would be the case. 

But as a matter of fact, Scripture has ever been adduced, by 
divines of all schools and all communions, as capable of proving 
all the great doctrines of the faith, and all the important rules of 
duty. Wecan either prove by it, or deduce from it, the great 
doctrines concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, 
the Sanctification of the Spirit, Original Sin, Justification, the 
grace of the Sacraments, the privileges of the Church, the Com- 
munion of Saints, the Judgment of the great day, and other 
weighty and cardinal points of faith. And though different schools 
have differed as to how Scripture should be interpreted on some 
of these points, yet all have agreed that the true doctrine con- 
cerning them may be gathered from Scripture, if interpreted 
aright. Whatever value, therefore, we may attribute to a Traditio 
Hermeneutica, to traditional interpretations of Scripture ; we ought 
to be satisfied that all things “to be required of any man as an 
article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation,” 
are so contained in Scripture that they may be either “ read there- 
in, or may be proved thereby.” 

Several things, indeed, all men allow, are contained in Scripture, 
which are not absolutely necessary to salvation, although they may 
tend to edification ; and if the lesser matters were inserted there, 
how can we suppose that the greater would be omitted? Nay, 
although the Church of Rome often appeals to tradition, as a 
necessary part of Divine Revelation, yet it may well be ques- 
tioned, whether even she pretends that any very important truth 
1s to be derived from tradition alone. And assuredly we may safe- 
ly assert, that there is a total absence of all evidence to prove that 
there is even professedly any tradition extant to which we are 
indebted for the knowledge of any great doctrine of the faith, in- 
dependently of the written word. 


1 Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 11. Bk. 1. Sect. 8. 


Sec. 17 FOR SALVATION. 143 


2. The principal arguments from reason in favour of the Roman; 
ist, and against the Anglican view of this subject, are as follow : — 

(1) Tradition was the first rule. From Adam to Moses all 
was traditional; and from the coming of Christ to the completion 
of the Canon of the new Testament, tradition must have been the 
principal guide of the Church. Scripture, therefore, which came 
in afterwards, cannot supersede that which was before it, and 
which, at first, was sufficient without it. 

This argument has already been virtually answered by anticipa- 
tion. The duration of men’s lives before the time of Moses, and 
the presence and personal teaching of inspired Apostles before the 
writing of the new Testament, were great safeguards against error. 
The fact, that, as these safeguards were withdrawn, God’s Prov- 
idence ordered that the Scriptures should be written and pre- 
served, shows of itself that tradition, which might have been 
sufficient then, would not be sufficient now. We do not say that 
Scripture supersedes tradition, but that it is itself the surest tra- 
dition, and the only one on which we can safely rely. It is in fact 
the Patriarchal, Levitical, and Apostolical tradition,.preserved in 
its safest and only certain form. 

(2) It is said that Scripture was not written systematically, 
but casually, as circumstances occurred, in’ casual memoirs and 
occasional letters; and therefore cannot be looked on as a sys- 
tematic collection of doctrine and morality. 

This, however, is no proof that the whole sum of necessary 
truth may not be extracted from it. How holy men of old were 
moved to speak, or to write, seems of little consequence. God’s 
wisdom saw fit that it should be in the way in which we have the 
Scriptures now. It is certainly in a more interesting, it is prob- 
ably in a more profitable way, than if a systematic arrangement 
had been adopted. It is not probable that the Apostles’ teaching, 
nor even that of our Lord, was always systematic; and yet in that 
all men admit that all necessary truth was contained. It cannot, 
therefore, be necessary to our position to show that the Scriptures 
are formally or systematically designed. 

(3) The genuineness and canonicity of Scripture itself rest on 
tradition, and on tradition alone ; and if tradition is necessary to 
prove this, it may equally prove other doctrines. 

It is true that historical testimony, and the universal consent 
of all the early Christians, are the chief grounds on which we rely 
for proof that the various books of the new Testament were the 
works of those whose names they bear. This indeed is, in a great 


144 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


measure, the way in which we prove the genuineness of every an- 
cient book. We do not know that a book was written by Cesar, 
or Tacitus, but by testimony and historical evidence. In like 
manner, testimony and historical evidence are essential to prove 
that the works ascribed to St. Peter or St. Paul were really theirs. 
In this latter case, indeed, we have the most convincing and sat- 
isfactory proofs; for we have the testimony of early Christians, 
of early heretics, of ancient heathens, of friends, and of enemies ; 
and besides this, the testimony of the Church catholic in general 
councils. These are things which we should never lightly value, 
under any circumstances; and when we have to deal with the 
question concerning the genuineness of certain books, such a kind 
of evidence is the most obvious, the most necessary, and the most 
satisfactory possible. But it does not follow that we should give 
the same deference to the same testimony, even if such could be 
found, on points of doctrine. For the opinions of Cesar or Tacitus, 
we prefer the words of their own books to any testimony exter- 
nal to those books. And so for the doctrines.of the Apostles, we 
look first and chiefly to what they have written. Besides, we 
have concerning the Canon of Scripture an universality of con- 
sent which it would be utterly in vain to search for concerning 
any doctrine of the faith which is not also to be found in Scripture. 
When the Roman Church can bring a like amount of consentient 
testimony to prove any doctrine on which Scripture is silent, we 
may then, and not till then, entertain the question of a doctrina 
tradita, parallel to, and of equal authority with, Scripture. 

(4) It is farther said, that many necessary things are not set 

down in Scripture. 

᾿ Bellarmine mentions the following: } 

a How women under the old Law yah be delivered from 
Original Sin, circumcision being only for males; and how 
males under eight days old might-be saved from it. 

b. The Perpetual Virginity of the blessed Virgin Mary, which 
has always been believed by the Church, and yet is not in 
Scripture. 

e. That Easter should be kept on a Sunday, which is necessary 
to be believed against’the Quarto-decimans. 

d. Infant Baptism, which is necessary to be believed; but neither 
Romanists nor Protestants can prove it from Scripture. 

8. That there is a Purgatory, which Luther himself believed, 
and yet admitted that it could not be found in Scripture. 

1 De Verbo Dei non Seripto, Lib. rv 


Src. Lj FOR SALVATION. 145 


If these are all the points that Scripture is silent upon; we 
need not be very solicitous about its deficiencies. None of them 
surely can be essential to our salvation. None, except the last 
two, materially concern our personal faith or practice. The last 
we not only admit is not in Scripture, but we positively deny that 
it is true. The last but one, Infant Baptism, we think may be 
fairly inferred from Scripture, when fully consulted on the subject ; 
and we are very thankful to have the additional testimony of the 
primitive Church concerning it, which we never reject, as a help 
and guide to the truth and right understanding of the Scriptures, 
but only as a distinct and independent authority. The question 
concerning Easter is one of ceremony, not of faith, and we gladly 
follow the primitive Church in matters of this nature; although 
we do not hold, that ceremonies must be one and tlfe same every- 
where. The doctrine concerning the Perpetual Virginity is rather 
a pious opinion, than a necessary article of faith. Our own great- 
est divines have mostly adhered to the primitive opinion on this 
subject. But we cannot think that any man’s salvation is the 
surer for believing, or the less sure for disbelieving it. 

The question concerning Original Sin, and how women under 
the Law were delivered from it, and still more, the question con- 
cerning infants under eight days old, is as much left in obscurity 
by tradition, as by Scripture. It is one of those things concerning © 
which we have no revelation. 

(5) But it is said, that some of the chief articles of faith, though 
deduced from Scripture, yet could not be proved from Scripture 
alone, without the help of tradition and the testimony of the 
Church. Among the rest are enumerated, the equality of the 
Divine Persons in the Trinity, the Procession of the Spirit from 
both the Father and the Son, the Descent into Hell, Original Sin, 
the change of the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day. 

The pr oof of most of these doctrines from Scripture has already 
been given under the preceding Articles. We maintain, that the 
equality of the Persons in the Godhead, and the other great doc- 
trines concerning the Trinity, also the Descent into Hell, and 
Original Sin, are clearly deducible from Scripture aloné. We do 
not indeed reject the testimony of antiquity, but view it, as a val- 
uable guide.to the true meaning of Holy Writ; but we maintain 
that these doctrines might be proved, even without its aid. As to 


1 Andrewes’s Devotions: see Prayers for the Virgin May " Bp. Bull, Works, τ. 
Monday. Jer. Taylor, Life of Cri, of Ρ. 96 
2. Pearson, On the Creed, Art. “ 


19 


rr ge ee ee a 


146 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES  [Arr. VL 


the Procession of the Holy Ghost, if Scripture will not prove it, 
certainly traditior. will not. In considering the last Article, we 
‘saw that the tradition of the Western was different, in some re- 
spects, from that of the Eastern Church. The Nicene Creed for 
some centuries lacked the Filioque. And from the evidence in 
favour of the doctrine, which we deduced from Scripture, it should 
appear that Scripture speaks more plainly upon it than tradition, 
or the Church. ‘The change of the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day is 
not an article of faith; but it is doubtless a matter of some mo- 
ment. It is true, that without the aid of history we might find 
some difficulty in discovering, whether the early Christians did 
give up observing the Jewish Sabbath, and kept festival on the 
first day of the week. But even so, we think, Scripture alone 
would give us ‘proof that the Lord’s Day was to be observed, and 
that the Jewish Sabbath was not to be observed. Certainly, we 
read of the first day of the week, as the day on which Christians 
held their assemblies, administered the Lord’s Supper (Acts xx. 
7), and collected alms for the poor (1 Cor. xvi. 2). So the Apos- 
tle St. John “ was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day ”(Rev. i. 10). 
But “ Sabbath-days ” are enumerated as one of the “shadows of 
things to come,” which belonged to the old dispensation, and so 
were not binding on Christians (Col. ii. 16,17). Hence, the new 
Testament gives us good reason to believe that the obligation to 
keep the seventh day of the week had passed away, and that the 
weekly festival of the Christian Church was not Saturday, but 
Sunday. Ifit be not conceded that such Scriptural authority be 
sufficient to satisfy us, we may reply, that the keeping of the 
Lord’s Day is not a question essential to our salvation, like the 
great doctrines of our faith ; and that, therefore, even if we require 
historical or traditional evidence concerning it, in addition to Serip- 
ture, that will not be a case to interfere with this Article of our 
Church which speaks only of articles of faith, and things necessary 
to salvation. 

(6) Lastly, it is said, Scripture is in many things so obscure, 
that tradition is necessary to explain its meaning. 

To this we reply, that there is, at times, no doubt, some diffi- 
culty. The Church of England does not reject the use of all 
proper aids for the explanation of Scripture. She encourages 
recourse to human learning, in order to elucidate the language of 
Holy Writ. She does by no means reject any light, which may 
be derived from primitive antiquity, and she is anxious to cherish a 
learned clergy for the instruction of her poorer and more ignorant 


FOR SALVATION. 147 


members. Her rule too concerning Scripture is not, that every 
uneducated person ought to take the Scriptures in hand, and 
search out for himself a system of theology. She teaches her 
children by catechisms and other simple steps to knowledge of the 
truth. All that she maintains is, that, as a final. court of appeal, 
Scripture is perfect and sufficient. Her children may, by intel- 
ligent and humble study of the Scriptures, find in them full 
autliority for all she teaches, and do not require a second, inde- 
pendent. authority. 

The fathers acknowledge the Scripture to be sufficiently a 
if expounded by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Irenzus 
tells us to solve the more difficult parts of Scripture by having 
recourse to those which are easy.!. And Chrysostom says, ‘* Look 
for no other teacher; thou hast the oracles of God; none teaches 
thee like these.’’? 

** There is no question, but there are many places in the Divine 
Scriptures, mysterious, intricate, and secret: but these are for the 
learned, not for the ignorant: for the curious and inquisitive, not 
for the busied and employed and simple: they are not repositories 
of salvation, but instances of labour, and occasions of humility, 
and arguments of forbearance and mutual toleration, and an en- 
dearment of reverence and adoration. But all that by which 
God brings us to Himself is easy and plain.’ ® 


Sxc. 11 


III. We have, lastly, to prove, that the testimony of the 
primitive fathers is in favour of the Anglican rule, and not of the 
Roman. 

1. Irenzeus says: “* We know that the Scriptures are perfect, 
as being spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit.”4 Again: 
“We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others 
but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then 
preached, and afterwards by God’s will delivered to us in the 
Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith.’’5 


1 Omnis autem questio non per aliud 
qued queritur habebit resolutionem, nec 
ambiguitas per aliam ambiguitatem solve- 
tur apud eos qui sensum habent, aut 
znigmata per aliud majus enigma, sed ea 
quz sunt talia ex manifestis et conso- 
nantibus et claris accipiunt solutionem.— 
Lib. 11. 10. See Beaven’s Account of 
Treneeus, Ὁ. 188. 

. Coloss. 


2 Homil. 1x. in E 
issuasive from Popery, 


3 Jer. Taylor’s 
Part 11. Bk. 1. § 2. 
* Cedere hee talia debemus Deo qui et 


nos fecit, rectissime scientes quia Serip- 
ture quidem perfects sunt, quippe a 
Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dict. — Lib. 
11. 6, 47. 

δ᾽ Non enim per alios dispositionem 
salutis nostre cognovimus, quam per eos 
per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos: 
quod quidem tune preconiaverunt, post- 
ea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scriptu- 
ris nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et 
mel fidei nostree futurum. — Lib. 
11. 6. 1. 


148 


Tertullian says: “1 adore the perfection of Scripture, which 
declares to me the Creator and His Works. . . . . Whether all 
things were made of preéxistent matter, I have as yet nowhere 
read. Let the school of Hermogenes show that it is written. If 
it is not written, let them fear the woe which is destined for them 
who add to or take away.’’} 

Origen says: “Τὴ two Testaments .... in which every word 
that appertains to God may be sought out and discussed, and from 
them all knowledge of things may be understood. If anything 
remain, which Holy Scripture doth not determine, no third Scrip- 
ture ought to be had recourse to.... but that which remaineth 
we must commit to the fire, 7. ¢., reserve it unto God. For God 
would not have us know all things in this world.”? 

Hippolytus writes: ‘* There is one God, whom we do not other- 
wise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. 
For as he who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot 
otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers, 
so whosoever will exercise piety towards God can learn it nowhere 
but from the Holy Scriptures.” ὃ 

Athanasius: “The holy and divinely-inspired Scriptures are 
of themselves sufficient to the enunciation of truth.”* Again: 
“These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be 
satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the 
doctrine of salvation is contained. Let no man add to, or take 
from them.’’5 

Cyril of Jerusalem says, that, ‘‘ Concerning the divine and holy 


THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


Ὁ Adoro Scripture plenitudinem qua 
mihi et Factorem manifestat et facta. 
In Evangelio vero amplius et ministrum 
et arbitrum Rectoris invenio, Sermonem. 
An autem de aliqua subjacenti materia 
facta sint omnia, nusquam adhuce legi. 
Soriptum esse doceat Hermogenis offi- 
cina. Si non est scriptum, timeat ve 
illud adjicientibus aut detrahentilus desti- 
natum. — Adv. Hermogenem, c. 22. See 
ν γον Apolog. ¢. 47. Prescript. c. 6, 


* In hoc biduo puto duo Testamenta 
posse intelligi, in quibus liceat omne 
verbum quod ad Deum pertinet (hoc 
enim est sacrificium) requiri et discuti, 
atque ex ipsis omnem rerum scientiam 
capi. Si quid autem superfuerit, eed 
non divina Scriptura decernat, nullam 
aliam tertiam Scripturam debere ad auc- 
toritatem scientia suscipi.... Sed i 
tradamus quod superest, id est, 
reservemus. Neque enim in presenti 


vita Deus scire nos omnia voluit. — Ori- 
gen. Homil. v. in Levit. 

ὃ Ele Θεὸς, ὃν οὐκ ἄλλοϑεν ἐπιγινώσκομεν, 
ἀδελφοὶ, ἢ ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν. Ὃν γὰρ 
τρόπον ἐάν τις βουληϑῇ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ αἰῶ- 
νος τούτου ἀσκεῖν, οὐκ ἄλλως δυνῆσεται τοῦ- 
του τυχεῖν ἐὰν μὴ δόγμασι φιλοσόφων ἐντύχῃ, 
τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ὅσοι Θεοσέβειαν ἀσκεῖν 
βουλόμεϑα, οὐκ ἄλλοϑεν ἀσκῆσομεν ἢ ἐκ τῶν 
λογίων του Θεοῦ. ---- Hippolyt. Contra Heere- 
sim New, ο. ᾿ να. 

* Αὐταρκεῖς μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ia 
ϑεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν νὰν tes 
ἀπαγγελίαν. --- Athanas. Contra Gentes, 
Tom. 1.p.1. © 

5 Ταῦτα πηγαὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου, ὥστε τὸν 
διψῶντα ἐμφορεῖσϑαι τῶν ἐν τούτοις ᾿ 
ἐν τούτοις μόνον τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας 
λεῖον εὐαγγελίζεται " μηδεὶς τούτοις ἐπιβαλ- 
λέτω, μὴ δὲ τούτων ἀφαιρείσϑω. --- Εὰ Fes- 
a Epistola xxx1x. Tom 11. p. 89. Edit. 

on. 


Sec. 11 


FOR SALVATION. 


149 


mysteries of the faith, even the most casual remark ought not to 


be delivered without the sacred Scriptures. 


221 


Basil: ‘‘ Believe those things which are written, the things 


which are not written seek not.’ 


“Tt is a manifest defection 


from the faith, and a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything 
of what is written, or to introduce anything that is πού. 8 
Ambrose : “ How can we use those things, which we find not 


in the Scriptures !”’+ 


Jerome: “* We deny not those things which are written, so we 


refuse those which are not written. 


That God was born of a 


Virgin we believe, because we read; that Mary married after she 
gave birth to Him, we believe not, because we read not.” ὅ 
Augustine: ‘In those things which are plainly laid down in 
Scripture, all things are found which embrace faith and morals,’’® 
Vincentius Lirinensis begins with the admission, that, ““ The 
Canon of Scripture is perfect, and most abundantly sufficient for 


all things.” 


Theodoret: “‘ Bring not human reasonings and syllogisms ; 1 


rely on Scripture.’’§ 


John Damascene: “ All things that are delivered to us by the 
Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists, we receive, 
acknowledge, and reverence, seeking for nothing beyond these.’’® 

It can scarcely be necessary to bring more or stronger proofs 
that the fathers with one voice affirm the perfection and sufficiency 


1 Δεῖ γὰρ περὶ τῶν ϑείων καὶ ἁγίων τῆς 
πίστεως μυστηρίων μηδὲ τὸ τύχον ἄνευ τῶν 
ϑείων παραδίδοσϑαι γραφῶν. ---- Ογτῖ!. Hie- 
rosol. Catech. rv. 12. 

2 Τοῖς γεγραμμένοις πίστευε, τὰ μὴ γε- 
γραμμένα μὴ ζήτει. ---- Basil. Hom. χχτχ. 
adv. Calumniantes S. Trin. 

8 Φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις πίστεως καὶ ὑπερηφα- 
νίας Pilate ἢ ἀϑετεῖν τι τῶν γεγραμμέ- 
νων ἢ ἐπεισάγειν τῶν μὴ γεγραμμένων. --- 
Basil. De Fide, GL ἡ υμωνοῖν 

4 Que in Scripturis sanctis non re- 
perimus, ea quemadmodum usurpare 
possumus.— Ambros. Offic. Lib. 1. ὁ. 
28 


δ Ut hee que scripta sunt non nega- 
mus, ita ea que non scripta sunt renu- 
imus. Natum Deum de Virgine credi- 
mus, quia legimus. Mariam nupsisse 
post partum non credimus, quia non 
legimus.— Hieron. Adv. Helvidium juzta 
Jjinem, Tom. Iv. part 1. p. 141, edit. 
Benedict. 

6 In iis qua aperte in Scriptura posita 
sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia que conti- 
nent fidem moresque vivendi. — August. 


De Doctrina Christ. Lib. 11. c. 9, Tom. 
111. Ὁ. 24. 

In like manner: —Proinde sive de 
Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de 
quacumque alia re que pertinet ad fidem 
vitamque vestram, non dicam nos, nequa- 
quam comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si 
nos; sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, 
Si angelus de cceelo vobis annuntiaverit 
preterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus 
et evangelicis accepistis anathema sit. — 
Aug. Cont. Petilium, Lib. 111. c. 6, Tom. 
1x. p. 801. 

7 Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Ca. 
non, sibique ad omnia sati# superque suf- 
ficiat. — Vincent. Lirin. Commonitor. c. 2. 

8 M7 μοι λογισμοὺς καὶ συλλογισμοὺς 
ἀνϑρωπίνους προσενέγκῃς - ἐγὼ yap μό 
πείϑομαι τῇ ϑείᾳ γραφῇ. ---- Theodoret. Dial 
1. “ATpent. 

9 Πάντα τὰ παραδιδόμενα ἡμῖν διά te 
νόμου, καὶ προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων καὶ 
εὐαγγελίστων δεχόμεϑα καὶ γινώσκομεν καὶ 
σέβομεν, οὐδὲν περαιτέρω τούτων ἐπιζητοῦν. 
tec. — Damaseen. Lib. 1. De Orthodox. 
Fide, ἃ. 1. 


150 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY’ SCRIPTURES (Arr. VL 
of the written word, for the end for which it was written, 7. ¢., for 
a rule of faith, and for a rule of life. 

2. (1) But an objection will be urged to these arguments 
from the fathers, that some of them, and those of no mean im- 
‘portance, clearly speak of a rule of faith which is distinct from 
the Scriptures; it is therefore evident that they do not appeal to 
Scripture alone as supreme, perfect, and sufficient. Thus, without 
question, Irenzeus spoke of a κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας, “a rule of truth,” 
according to which he considered that the Scriptures ought to be 
‘interpreted.? In the same manner Tertullian appeals to a Regula 
Fidei, “a rule of faith,” by which he was guided in interpreting 
Scripture. Here are two of the earliest fathers appealing to an 
ἡ authority which is certainly not Scripture ; and therefore they must 
have held that something besides Scripture was necessary, and 
that all things needful for faith and practice were not contained 
in Scripture. 

If, however, we consult the contexts, we shall find that the 
rule spoken of in both these fathers is the baptismal Creed. 
Irenzeus expressly says that the Canon of Truth, which each one 
was to keep, was that which was received by him at his baptism ;* 
and in the next chapter recites a form or profession of faith, 
which is very nearly the same as the Apostles’ Creed, and which 
he speaks of as that “ faith which the Church scattered through- 
out the world diligently keeps.” ® 

In the very same manner Tertullian writes, “* Now we have a 
rule of faith, which teaches us what we are to defend and main- 
tain, and by that very rule we believe, that there is One God,” 
ἄς. ; he goes on reciting the various articles of the Creed. Here 
then we see, that the rules of faith of Irenzeus and Tertullian were 
not some independent tradition, teaching doctrines not to be found 
in Scripture, but the Creeds taught to the Christians, and confessed 
by them at their baptism, which were in fact epitomes of important 
Scriptural doctrine, founded on Scripture, and fully according with 


1 Divines of the English Church have 
collected many other passages to the 
same purpose. See Laud against Fisher, 

16; Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, ch. 2; 

er. Taylor, Dissuasive from Popery, Part 
11. Bk. τ. ch. 2; Rule of Conscience, Book 
11. che 11. Rule xiv. From some of which 
works Ihave taken the above passages, 
(with one or two exceptions,) merely 


nic, tg the yew a 

2 Οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν κάνονα τῆς ἀληϑείας 
ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων, ὃν διὰ βαπτίσμα- 
τος εἴληφε, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ὀνόματα 


καὶ τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰς παραβολὰς ἐπιγνώ. 
oerat, — Irene. 1. 9. 

8 Hee Regula a Christo, ut probabi- 
tur, instituta, nullas habet questiones, 
nisi quas hwreses inferunt, et que he- 
reticos faciunt. — Tertull. De Frascript. 
Heret, ο. 14. 

Adversus Regulam nihil scire omnia 
scire. — /bid. 

* See the last note but one. 

5 Lib. 1. 10. 

® De Prescript. Haret. c. 18. 


Sec. L] FOR SALVATION. 151 


it. This is a widely different thing from the Doctrina tradita of 
the Church of Rome. Reliance on the latter is opposed to the 
sufficiency of Scripture; but the rule of Ireneus and Tertullian 
was based upon Scripture, and in all respects accordant with it. 

Clement of Alexandria also, who is almost as early a witness as 
Tertullian, speaks, like Irenzeus, of a κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας, “a rule 
of truth,” which he also calls κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός. But this 
rule, so far from being something apart from, and of parallel 
authority with Scripture, is, according to Clement, founded on a 
harmony of the old Testament with the new. ‘The ecclesiasti- 
cal rule,” says he, ‘“is the harmony of the Law and the Prophets 
with the Covenant delivered by the Lord during His presence 
on earth.” 1 

A like sense we must attach to the language of the later 
fathers, when we find them speaking of a Regula Fidei. They 
considered the fundamental doctrines of the faith, those, that is, 
contained in the Creeds, to be the great guide for Christians in 
interpreting Scriptures. Whosoever erred from these erred from 
' the truth; and, in explaining obscure passages, they held that it 
was very needful to keep in view the necessity of not deviating 
from the great lines of truth marked out in the baptismal Creeds. 
This was not to add to Scripture, but to guard it against being 
wrested to destruction.” 

(2) But, it may be said, Ireneus, Tertullian, and others, not 
only appealed to tradition, but even preferred arguing from tra- 
dition to arguing from Scripture. 

Tertullian especially says: ‘‘ No appeal must be made to the 
Scriptures, no contest must be founded on them, in which victory 
is uncertain..... The grand question is, to whom the Faith itself 
belongs ; in whose hands were the Scriptures deposited . .. . to 
whom that doctrine was first committed, whereby we are made. 
Christians? For wherever this true doctrine and discipline shall 
appear to be, there the truth of the Scripture and of the inter- 
pretation of it will be, and of Christian tradition.’’# 

The meaning, however, of this appeal to tradition in echoes 
to Scripture, both by Irenzus and Tertullian, is this: both were 
reasoning against heretics. Those heretics mutilated Scripture, 


1 Κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ of the Bible, Lect. x1.; Bp. Kaye’ s Ter- 
ἡ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ tullian, p. 290, &c.; Bp. Kaye’s Clement 
τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ δια- of Alexandria, Ρ. 866; Beaven’s Zreneus, 
ϑήκῃ. --- Strom. Lib. v1. ο. 15, ed. Potter, ch. vii. 
p. 803. 8 De Prescript. Heret. c. 19. 

2 See Bp. Marsh, On the Interpretation 


- 
152 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VIL 


and perverted it. When, therefore, the fathers found their appeal 
to Scripture of no effect, partly because the heretics were ready to 
deny that what they quoted was Scripture, and partly because they 
were ready to evade its force by false glosses and perverted inter- 
pretations; then the fathers saw that to reason from Scripture was 
not convincing to their opponents, and therefore they had recourse 
to the doctrine preserved by the Apostolical Churches, which, they 
maintained, were not likely to have lost or to have corrupted the 
truth first intrusted to them. It was not, that they themselves 
doubted the sufficiency of Scripture, but that they found other 
weapons useful against the gainsayers, and therefore brought tra- 
dition, not to add to, but to confirm Scripture.! 

The same may be said concerning the famous work of Vincen- 
tius Lirinensis. He begins by admitting that “Scripture is perfect 
and abundantly of itself sufficient for all things.” But because 
various heretics have misinterpreted it, Novatian expounding it one 
way, Photinus in another, Sabellius in another, and so on: ‘ there- 
fore,” he says, ‘‘ very necessary it is for the avoiding of such turn- 
ings and twinings of error, that the line of interpreting the Proph- 
ets and Apostles be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiastical 
and Catholic sense.” * This is not to introduce a new rule inde- 
pendent of Scripture. It is at most a Fraditio Hermeneutica, a 
rule for the interpreting of Scripture. It still leaves Scripture, as 
the fountain of truth; though it guards against using its streams 
for other than legitimate purposes. 

Finally, we have seen the concurrent testimony of the fathers 
to be in favour of the sufficiency of Scripture. If, here and there, 
a single passage be apparently unfavourable to this testimony, we 
must hold it to be a private opinion of an individual father, and 
therefore not worthy of being esteemed in comparison with their 
general consent. For it is a rule of Vincentius himself, that 
« Whatsoever any, although a learned man, a bishop, a martyr, or 
a confessor holds, otherwise than all, or against all, this must be 
put aside from the authority of the general judgment, and be 
reputed merely his own private opinion.” ὃ 

1 See Beaven’s Jreneus, p. 186; Bp. ὃ Commonitor. ο. 28. On the true sense 


Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 297, note. of the perfection of Scripture, see Hooker, 
2 Commonitor. c. 2. Ε. P. τ. xiii. xiv. 11. viii. 6. 


Sxc. II.] FOR SALVATION. 


153 


Scrron Il.—ON THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE? 


AS’ Scripture is determined by our Church to be the final appeal 
and only infallible authority concerning matters of faith and 
practice, it becomes next a subject of the deepest importance to 
determine, what is Scripture, and what is not. And, as this 
subject is so important, we naturally look for an authority of the 
highest kind to settle and determine it. We value, indeed, the 
decisions of antiquity, we respect the judgment of the primitive 
Church.. But on the question, What is the Word of God? we 
would, if possible, have an authority as infallible as the word of 
God; and, if we can have such authority, we can be satisfied with 
nothing less. 

Now such an authority we believe that we possess; and that 
we possess it in this way: Christ Himself gave His own Divine 
sanction to the Jewish Canon of the old Testament; and He gave 
His own authority to His Apostles to write the new. If this 
statement be once admitted, we have only to investigate histori- 
eally, what was the Jewish Canon, and what were the books writ- 
ten by the Apostles. We need search no farther; we shall greatly 
confirm our faith by the witness of fathers and councils; but, if 
Christ has spoken, we need no other, as we can have no higher 
warrant. 

I. Now, first, we have to consider the question of the old 
Testament ; and our inquiry is, Has our Lord Himself stamped 
with His authority certain books, and left others unauthorized? 
The answer is, He has. We must not, indeed, argue from the 
fact of His quoting a certain number of books and leaving a cer- 
tain number unquoted; for there are six. books which can be 
proved to be Canonical, which the writers of the new Testament 
never quote; namely, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesias- 
tes, Solomon’s Song. The fact that these books are not quoted 
will not destroy their authority ; for we have no reason to say that 
our Lord or His Apostles quoted systematically from all the Ca- 


1 The word xévwv signifies a line, or 
rule, —a standard, therefore, by which 
other things are to be judged of. It is 
applied to the tongue of a balance, or that 
small part of the scales which by its per- 
pendicular situation determines the even 
poise or weight, or by its inclination 
either way the uneven poise of the 
things that are weighed. It is applied to 

Qn 


the Scriptures, because they have ever 
been esteemed in the Chureh “ the infsl 
lible rule of our faith, and the perfect 
square of our actions, in all things that 
are in any way needful for our eternal 
salvation.”” —Cosin’s Scholastical Hist. of 
“ Canon, ch. 1.; Jones, On the Canon, 
ch. I. 


154 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VI 


nonical books, in order to establish their canonicity. But the way 
in which our Lord has given His own sanction to a certain definite 
number of books, is this: in speaking to the Jews, both He and 
His Apostles constantly address them as having the Scriptures, — 
Scriptures of Divine authority, and able to make them wise unto 
salvation. They never hint that the Jewish Canon is imperfect or 
excessive; and hence they plainly show that the Scriptures which 
the Jews possessed and acknowledged, were the truly Canonical 
Scriptures of the old Testament. Our Lord bids them. * Search 
the Scriptures,” and adds, ‘they are they which testify of Me” 
(John ν. 39). St. Paul says, that the greatest privilege of the 
Jews was that “ unto them were committed the Oracles of God” 
(Rom. iii. 2); and tells Timothy, that “from a child he had 
known the Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto 
salvation” (2 Tim. iii. 16). Accordingly, our Lord constantly 
appeals to those Scriptures as well-known and universally received 
books among the Jews, to whom He spoke, quoting them as, * It 
is written,” or asking concerning them, ‘ How readest thou?” 
Though the Jews are charged with many errors, with corrupting 
the truth by tradition, and adding to it the commandments of 
men; yet nowhere are they charged with corrupting Scripture, 
with having rejected some, or added other books to the Canon. 
But it is ever plainly implied that the Canon which they then 
possessed, was the true Canon of the old Testament. Thus, then, 
by quoting, referring to, or arguing from the old Testament, as it 
was then received by the Jews, our Lord stamps with His own 
supreme authority the Jewish Canon of the old Testament Scrip- 
tures. We have only further to determine from history what the 
Jewish Canon, at the time of our Saviour’s teaching, was, and 
we have all that we can need. If history will satisfy us of this, 
we have no more to ask. 

Now the only difficulty lies here. There appear to be two 
different books claiming to be the Jewish Scriptures ; namely, the 
Hebrew Bible, now in the hands both of Jews and Christians, 
and the Septuagint. The latter contains all the books contained 
in the former, with the addition of the books commonly called the 
Apocrypha. 

Let us first observe, that the m-dern Jews universally acknowl- 
edge no other Canon but the Hebrew; which corresponds accu- 
rately with the Canon of the English Church. Those who know 
the fidelity with which for centuries the Jews have guarded their 
text, will consider this alone to be a strong argument that the 


Sec. I] ᾿ FOR SALVATION. 155 


Hebrew Canon is the same as that cited by our Lord. Every 
verse, every word, every letter, of Scripture is numbered by them. 
Every large and every small letter, every letter irregularly written, 
above the line or below the line, is taken notice of and scrupu- 
lously preserved. 

But we can go back to more ancient times, and show that the 
Canon of the Jews has always been the same, The Babylonian 
Talmud recounts the same books that we have now; namely, in 
the Law, the five books of Moses; among the Prophets, Joshua 
and Judges, Samuel.and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and 
the twelve minor prophets ; in the Chethubim, Ruth, Psalms, Job, 
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, 
Esther, Chronicles. This was the Canon of the Jewish Church 
about a. Ὁ. 550.) 

But one hundred and fifty years earlier than this, Jerome under- 
took the task of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin. 
Theretofore all the Latin translations had been from the Septua- 
gint, and therefore contained all the Apocryphal books. Jerome, 
the first of the Latin fathers who could read Hebrew, when under- 
taking this important labour, was naturally led to examine into the 
Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. He informs us, that the Jews 
had two-and-twenty books in their Bible, corresponding with the 
two-and-twenty Hebrew letters. This number they made by 
classing two books together as one ; thus, the two books of Samuel 
were one, the two books of Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah 
and Lamentations, Judges and Ruth, respectively, were considered 
as one each. The books were divided into three classes, the Law, 
the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. The first contained the five 
books of Moses; the second contained Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 
Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, and 
the twelve minor prophets ; the third contained Psalms, Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, 
Esther, Chronicles. The Law, therefore, contained five books, the 
Prophets eight, the Hagiographa nine.? 

To go still farther back, Origen, who was born a. Ὁ. 184 adit 
who died a. Ὁ. 255, and who, like Jerome, was learned in Hebrew 
and gave great attention to the Hebrew text, (as is well known 
from his famous work, the Hexapla,) enumerates the same books 


1 Baba Bathra, fol. 14, col. 2. The Chethubim, z.e. The Scriptures or Writ- 
books of Moses are called mA The ings. 


2 
Law; the prophetical books. Ds). hy γον Sho ani Op. Tom. 


The Prophets; the other books DAN 


156 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VI 


that Jerome does, except that he adds after all the rest, that there 
was the book Maccabees apart or distinct from the others. 

Still earlier, Melito, bishop of Sardis, made a journey into the 
East, for the sake of inquiring what were the books held canonical 
there, and, in a letter to Onesimus, gives a catalogue of these 
books, precisely corresponding with the present Canon of the 
Hebrew Scriptures, except that he classes Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
Esther, under the common name of Esdras.2 This father lived 
about the year 160. 

We next come to Josephus. He flourished at the time of the 
siege of Jerusalem, and was therefore contemporary with the 
Apostles. In the first place, we find in his writings the same 
threefold division which occurs in Jerome, and has ever since been 
common with the Jews; namely, the Law, the Prophets, and 
other books, which he characterizes as “ Hymns and Instructions 
for Men’s Lives.’ A similar division exists in Philo. But Jose- 
phus, moreover, divides the Scriptures, as Jerome testifigs that 
the Jews did in his time, into twenty-two books. The only 
difference between the divisions of Josephus and Jerome is, that, 
whereas Jerome says there were eight in the Prophets and nine 
in the Hagiographa, Josephus assigns thirteen to the Prophets, and 
four to the Hagiographa. We know, however, that the Jews 
have gradually been augmenting the number of the books in the 
Hagiographa and diminishing the number in the Prophets, so that 
there is no great wonder, if between the first and the fourth cen- 
tury there was such a change in their mode of reckoning, that 
in the first they reckoned thirteen, in the fourth but eight among 
prophetical books. 

Thus then, since we find that Josephus gives the same three- 
fold division which we find afterwards given by Jerome, and also 
that he gives the same total number of books, namely, twenty- 
two, though somewhat differently distributed, we might at once 
naturally conclude that the Jewish Canon in the time of Josephus 
was the same with the Jewish Canon in the time of Jerome. 
That is to say, we might conclude that it embraced the books now 
in the Hebrew Bibles and in the Canon of the English Church, 
and that it excluded the Apocryphal books, which the English 


1 Ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25: Ἔξω δὲ % Buseb. ΤΠ. £. rv. 26. See Bp. Cosin 
τούτων tort τὰ Μακκαβαϊκὰ, ἅπερ ἐπιγέ- as above, ch. Iv. 
γράπται Σαρβὴϑ Σαρβανιὰλ. Bishop Cosin ὃ De Vita Contemplativa, Tom. τι. Δ; 
-nterprets this, as meaning that the 475; Marsh, On the Authority of the 
Books of Maccabees were “out of the Testament, Lect. xxx11. 
Canon.” — History of the Canon, ch. v. ‘ aa Apion. τ. § 8; Buseb. H. Ξ. 
111. 10. 


Src. IL] FOR SALVATION. 


157 


Church excludes. But, if we could doubt that this was the case, 
his own words might- set us at rest, for he tells us that the 
books belonging to the second class (7. 6. to the Prophets) were 
written previously to the reign (or to the death) of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, and that, though books were written after that time, 
“they were not esteemed worthy of the same credit with those 
before them, because there was no longer the exact succession of 
the Prophets.”1 It was during the reign of Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus that the book of Esther was written, Artaxerxes being, 
according to Josephus, the Ahasuerus of that book.? This would 
therefore be the last book of his Canon. All the Apocryphal 
books must have been written long after that reign, and therefore 
cannot be included in his twenty-two books, compared with which 
they were not thought worthy of equal credit. It is plain, there- 
fore, that the Canon of Josephus must be the same with that of 
Jerome. 

Now, in the short time which elapsed between our Saviour’s 
earthly ministry and Josephus, no alteration can have taken place 
in the Canon. Josephus himself tells us, that. a copy of the 
Hebrew Scriptures was preserved in the Temple.’ And therefore, 
until the destruction of the Temple, when Josephus was thirty- 
three years old, that Temple copy existed, and was a protection 
against all change. He would have had easy access to that Temple 
copy, and hence is a fully competent witness to its contents. Nay, 
even without the existence of that copy, which was an invaluable 
security, we learn from Philo, that in his time the Jews had the 
same intense veneration for the words of Scripture which we 
know them to have had afterwards; so that nothing could induce 
them “to alter one word, and that they would rather die ten 
thousand deaths than suffer any alteration in their laws and 
statutes.” ἐ , 

We now are arrived at the period. when the books of the new 
Testament were written. Philo and Josephus were in fact con- 
temporaries of Christ and His Apostles. We have already seen, 


1 ’Amd δὲ ᾿Αρταξέρξου péxpt τοῦ Kav’ 
ἡμᾶς χρόνου, γέγραπται μὲν ἕκαστα " πίστεως 
δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, διὰ τὸ 
μὴ γενέσϑαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ δια- 
doxnv. — Contra Apionem, 1. ὃ 8; Euseb. 
A. E. 111. 10. 

2 Antiq. Lib. x1. cap. 6. 

8 Δηλοῦται διὰ τῶν ἀνακειμένων ἐν τῷ 
ἱερῷ γ arwy.— Antig. Lib. v. cap. 17. 

*Philo-Judeus Ap. Huseb. Prepar. 
Evangel. Lib. vir. ὃ 6: Μὴ ῥῆμα γ᾽ αὐτοὺς 


ὄνον τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμέ κινῆσαι 
ἤλλὰ κἄν μυρίακις δι τῳ τ καὶ js 
vat ϑᾶττον τοῖς ἐκείνου νόμοις καὶ ἔϑεσιν | 
ἐναντία πεισϑῆναι. --- ϑρ6. Cosin, On the 
Canon, ch. 11. 

So Josephus: Δῆλον δ᾽ ἔστιν ἔργῳ πῶς 
ἡμεῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις γράμμασι πεπιστεύκαμεν " 
τοσούτου γὰρ αἰῶνος dn παρῳχηκότος οὔτε 
προσϑεῖναί τις οὐδὲν, οὔτε ἀφελεῖν αὐτῶν, 
οὗτε μεταϑεῖναι τετόλμηκεν. ---- Contra Apio- 
nem, τ. ὃ 8; Euseb. H. 15. 111. 10. 


158 
that our Lord and the Apostles quote the Scriptures as well known 
and universally received, and never hint at their corruption. Our 
Lord indeed divides them (as we see they were divided by Jerome 
and the Jews ever since) into three distinct classes, which our 
Lord calls the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,! in which “ the 
Psalms” is put for the whole Hagiographa, either because the 
Psalms stood first among the books of the Hagiographa, or because 
the Hagiographa may be said to consist chiefly of hymns and 
poems, which might well be called Psalms.2 We have to add to 
this, that in the new Testament every book of the Jewish Canon 
is distinctly quoted with the exception of six, and those perhaps 
the six least likely to have furnished passages for quotation ; but 
not one quotation occurs from any one of those books which form 
ἃ part of what is now called the Apocrypha.® 

If we could carry the evidence no farther, we might rest satis- 
fied here, that our Lord gave His sanction to the Hebrew, not to 
the Septuagint Canon. But we can go one step farther, and it is 
this: one hundred and thirty years before our Lord’s birth, the 
Prologue of the Book of Ecclesiasticus was written, which classes 
the Hebrew Scriptures into the same three classes, “the Law, the 
Prophets, and the other books of the fathers.” This is a ground 
for believing that the Jewish Scriptures were the same in number 
then that they were found to be afterwards. Again, what is not 
a little important, Targums,* some of which are as old as, or older 
than the Christian era, were made from all the books of the old 
Testament, but none are to be found of the Apocryphal books. 
We have Targums of the Law, Targums of the Prophets, Tar- 
gums of the Chethubim, but no Targums of the Apocrypha. 

Our evidence is now pretty nearly complete ; we may recapitu- 
late it thus. 

We have the threefold division of the Scriptures mentioned — 
in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, by Philo, by our blessed Lord, 
by Josephus; and the same we find in the time of Jerome, and 
among all the Jews from that time to this. 


THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. V1 


4“That all things must be fulfilled, 
which were written in the Law of Mo- 
ses, and in the Prophets, and in the 
Psalms.” — Luke xxiv. 44. 

2 According to the division which ex- 
isted in our Saviour’s time, which proba- 
bly was the same as that in the time of 
Josephus, there would have been but four 
books in the Chethubim or Hagiographa, 
namely, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
Solomon’s Song. 


® See this proved, — Cosin, Hist. of 
Canon, ch. 111. 
The Targums were translations or 
phrases of the Scriptures, made from 
the original Hebrew into Chaldee, when 
Hebrew had become a dead language, 
which was the case soon after the return 
from captivity. They were read in the 
synagogues, and formed the ordinary in- 
struments for instruction of the Jews of 
Palestine in the Scriptures. 


Src. IL] | FOR SALVATION. 159 


We know, that the number of books contained in these three 
classes was, in the time of Josephus, twenty-two. The same 
number we find recounted by Origen and Jerome, as belonging 
to the Jewish Canon, and Origen and Jerome give us their 
names, which are the names of the books in the present Jewish 
Canon. 

The Canon in the time of Josephus, who was born a. Ὁ. 87, 
must have been the same as that in the time of Christ: as its 
security was guaranteed by the existence of the Temple copy, 
to say nothing of the scrupulous fidelity of the Jews, who, as 
Philo tells us, would have died ten thousand times rather than 
alter one word. 

The Targums, which are paraphrases of the books in the pres- 
ent Hebrew Canon, confirm the same inference ; and some of them 
are as old as the time of our Lord. 

Now we know exactly how the threefold division embraced 
the books of the Hebrew Canon. We know how, in Origen’s 
time and in Jerome’s time, the twenty-two books (which was 
also the number in Josephus’s time) embraced the books of the 
Hebrew Canon. We know, too, that Melito, less than one hun- 
dred years after Josephus, gave, as the books received in the East, 
a catalogue corresponding exactly with the same Hebrew Canon. 
But no imaginable ingenuity can ever make the books of the 
Apocrypha fit into any of these divisions, or agree with any of 
these lists. 

When we add to this, that our Lord and His Apostles, when 
they gave the sanction of Divine authority to the Jewish Scrip- 
tures, quote perpetually nearly all the books of the Hebrew Canon, 
and quote none besides, no link in the chain seems wanting to 
prove, that the Jewish Canon is. that to which Christ appealed, 
and which He has commended to us, as the Word of God. 

The history of the Septuagint explains the only difficulty in the 
question. It is briefly as follows : — 

In the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus this version was made 
at Alexandria. It is impossible, that it could have then contained 
the books of the Apocrypha, inasmuch as these books were not 
written till after the date when the Septuagint version was made ; 
none of them probably having been in existence till about two 
centuries before the Christian era. At what exact time the 
Apocryphal books were written respectively, it is not easy to 
determine. None of them could have been written in Hebrew, 
which had then become a dead language; though some may have 


160 


been composed in Chaldee or Syriac, languages which in the new 
Testament and in other writings are frequently called Hebrew 
However, when these Apocryphal books were written, if in Greek, 
the originals, if in Chaldee, the Greek translations, were, in all 
probability, inserted into the Septuagint, along with the still more 
sacred books of Scripture, by the Alexandrian Jews, who, in their 
state of dispersion, were naturally zealous about all that concerned 
their religion and the history of their race. The places which 
they assigned to the various books, were dependent either on the 
subject or on the supposed author. Thus the Song of the three 
Children, the Story of Susanna, and the History, of Bel and the 
Dragon, seemed connected with, and were therefore added to, the 
book of Daniel. The Greek Esdras seemed naturally to be con- 
nected with the Greek translation of the book of Ezra. The 
Book of Wisdom, being called the Wisdom of Solomon, was added 
to the Song of Solomon; and the book of Ecclesiasticus, called the 
Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, was placed after the Wisdom 
of Solomon. 

No doubt, the Alexandrian Jews ascribed great importance to 
the books which they thus inserted in the Septuagint version; but 
Philo, who was an Alexandrian Jew, and who was a contemporary 
of our Lord’s, never quotes them for the purpose of establishing 
any doctrine; and it is certain that none of them ever got into 
the Hebrew Canon; nor were they ever received by the Jews 
of Palestine, amongst whom our blessed Saviour taught, and to 
whose Canon, therefore, He gave the sanction of His Divine 
authority. 

Now the fathers of the Christian Church for the first three 
centuries were, with the exception of Origen, profoundly ignorant 
of Hebrew. It was natural, therefore, that they should have 
adopted the Greek version as their old Testament; and, accord- 
ingly, it formed the original of their Latin version. Hence the 
books of the old Testament current in the Church were, in Greek 
the Septuagint, in Latin a translation from the Greek Septuagint ; 


THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


1 The Book of Ecclesiasticus appears 
from ch. i. 27 to have been written Ὁ 
“Jesus the Son of Sirach of Jerusalem ;”’ 
and in the Prologue of his grandson the 
words of the book are said to have been 

paicri λεγόμενα, written in Hebrew. 
However, Hebrew was then a dead lan- 
guage, and the Jews spoke Syro-Chaldee, 
which was what St. Paul spoke when he 
addressed his countrymen “in the He- 


brew dialect,” ἐν Εβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, Acts 


xxii. 1. It is also said that the first book 
of Maccabees was written in Hebrew; 
but as some of the events recorded in it 
happened within one hundred and fifty 

ears from the birth of Christ, it must 

ave been the same Chaldee. Tobit also 
and Judith are said by Jerome, in his 
Prefaces to these books, to have been 
written Chaldeo sermone, though it has 
been thought the Chaldee was only a 
translation. 


ἈΝ 


8εο. II. FOR SALVATION. 161 


both therefore containing the Apocryphal books. It was not till 
the time of Jerome, that a translation was made from the Hebrew; 
and hence, in the eyes of many, the whole collection of books con- 
tained in the Septuagint and the old Latin translation was natu- 
rally viewed with the respect due to Scripture. Many indeed of 
the fathers, as we shall soon see, knew the difference between the 
books of the Hebrew Canon and those of the Apocrypha, and 
knew that the former were Divine, the latter of inferior authority. 
But still many quoted almost indiscriminately from both ; and espe- 
cially St. Augustine is appealed to, as having given a Catalogue of 
the old Testament Scriptures, which contained the books of Tobit, 
Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees.! 
In the Latin Church the name of Augustine stood deservedly 
high. Though Jerome’s labours showed the fallacy of Augustine’s 
opinion, though the Greek fathers never received the Apocryphal 
books so carelessly as the Latin fathers had done, and though 
even Augustine himself was aware of the difference between them 
and the books of the Hebrew Canon; yet the Apocryphal books 
still kept their place in the Latin Vulgate, and were ultimately 
adopted by the Council of Trent, as part of the Canon of Scrip- 
ture. Yet as we can thus easily trace the origin of the mistake, 
and thereby see that it was a mistake, we need not be led away 
with it. 

This, necessarily very brief, sketch of the grounds on which we 
believe the present Hebrew Canon to be that to which our Lord 
gave His sanction, may be sufficient to show on what we rest our 
belief concerning the sacred books of the old Testament. From 
such historical evidence we know, that the Scriptures which the 
Lord Jesus appealed to, authorized, and confirmed, were the books 
contained in our Hebrew Bibles.2 We ask no more, and we can 
receive no more. On such a matter the appeal to such an author- 
ity must be final. Fathers and Councils, nay, ‘the holy Church 
throughout all the world,” would be as nothing, if their voice 
could be against their Lord’s. 

We are not, however, in this or in any other question, insen- 
sible to the value of the opinions of the fathers, still less of the 
consent of the early Church. And though we can plainly see 
what, in this case, may have led some of the fathers into error, 
we rejoice in being able to show, that, in the main, their testimony 

1 Augustin. De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. are such as Matt. v.18. Luke xvi. 29; 
τι. 6. 8; Opera, Tom. 111. pt. 1. ἢ. 28. xxiv. 27, 44. John ν. 89. Rom. iii. 1, 2: 

2 Passages of the new Testament, ix. 4. 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. 


where such ouihneer s is given to the old, 
21 


ΠῚ ΨΥ 9. 


162 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


is decisive for what we have already, on other grounds, shown to 
be the truth. 

Now in the second century, a.p. 147, Justin Martyr, himself a 
native of Palestine, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, though 
he reproves him for many other things, never reproaches him for 
rejecting any of the Canonical Scriptures.!_ Melito, a. p. 160, we 
have already seen, went to Palestine to be satisfied concerning the 
Canon of the old ‘Testament, and reports that it contained, accord- 
ing to the Christians of that country, the books of our Hebrew 
Bible? Origen, a.p. 220, the most learned of the early fathers, 
the famous compiler of the Hexapla, himself a native of and resi- 
dent at Alexandria, where the Septuagint version was made and 
received, gives us the same account as Melito.? 

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, a. p. 340, gives a perfect 
catalogue of the books of Scripture, enumerating the books of the 
old Testament just as the English Church receives them now, and 
mentioning as not canonical * the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom 
of Sirach, Esther (7. e. the Apocryphal book of Esther), Judith, 
and Tobit.® 

Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, in France, a. p. 350, numbers the 
books of the old Testament as twenty-two, and gives the names of 
the very books of the Hebrew Bible used in the English Church, 
saying that some persons had added to this number Tobit and 
Judith, to make up twenty-four, the number of the Greek letters, 
instead of twenty-two, the number of the Hebrew.® 

Cyril of Jerusalem, a.p. 360, in his Catechetical Lectures, 
exhorts the catechumens to abstain from the Apocryphal, and to 
read only the Canonical books of Scripture, giving as the reason, 
** Why shouldest thou, who knowest not those which are acknowl- 
edged by all, take needless trouble about those which are ques- 


tioned ?”’ 


1 Cosin, On the Canon, ch. rv. 

2 Buseb. 17. 15. 1v. 26. 

8 Euseb. H. EF. νι. 25. 

4 *Erepa βίβλια τούτων ἔξωϑεν " ob κα- 
νονιζόμενα μὲν, τετυπωμένα δὲ παρὰ τῶν 
πατέρων. Ε 

5 Festal. Epist. xxx1x. Op. Tom. 11. 
aT Bened. ‘Tom. 11. p. 88. Co- 


The only thing to be observed in the 
catalogue of Athanasius is, that he joins 
Baruch and the Epistle with Jeremiah ; 
into which mistake many of the fathers 
fell, from the connection which was made 
between those books in the LXX. and 
Latin ; though some think, that nothing 


He makes the number of the books twenty-two, and 


more is meant than what is inserted in 
the book of Jeremiah concerning Ba- 
ruch, and the Epistle contained in the 
twenty-ninth chapter of the prophecy 
of Jeremiah, — not the apocryphal books 
of these names. See Cosin, ch. v1. 

6 Hilar. Proleg. in Librum Psalmorum, 
§ 15, edit. Benedict. p. 9. His Cata- 
logue is Five books of Moses, 5. Joshua, 
1. Judges and Ruth, 1. Samuel, 1. 
Kings, 1. Chronicles, 1. Ezra (including 
Nehemiah), 1. Psalms, 1. Proverbs, 1. 
Ecclesiastes, 1. Song of Songs, 1. Minor 
Prophets, 1. Isaiah, 1. Jeremiah (with 
Lamentations and Epistle), 1. Daniel, 1. 
Ezekiel,1. Job, 1. Esther,1. In all, 22 


Sxc. 11.} FOR SALVATION. 168 


gives the same list as Athanasius, ὁ. 6. the same as the English 
Canon, with the addition of Baruch and the Epistle to the book 
of Jeremiah.? 

The Council of Laodicea, held about a.p. 364, in its fifty-ninth 
Canon, gives exactly the same list as Athanasius and Cyril. The 
Canons of this Council were approved by name in the Council of 
Constantinople in Trullo.? 

Epiphanius, Bishop of Constance, in Cyprus, a.D. 375, three 
times numbers the books of the old Testament as we do, and 
mentions the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as ‘ doubtful 
writings,” and not counted as among the sacred books “ because 
they were never laid up in the Ark of the covenant.” ® 

Gregory Nazianzen, α. Ὁ. 376, gives a catalogue, which is the 
same as the Canon of the English Church, except that he does not 
mention Esther, which he probably includes in Ezra.* 

Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia, a.p. 398, numbers the books 
of the old Testament as the English Church does at present.° 

Jerome, the contemporary and friend of Rufinus, gives us, as 
we have seen, the same catalogue as the Church of England now 
receives, and enumerates Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, 
and the Maccabees, as Apocryphal books.® 

We have now arrived at the close of the fourth century, and 
have found that the whole chain of evidence up to that period is in 
favour, and most, decidedly in favour, of the Canon of the English 
Church. It will be no argument against such testimony, that 
many of the fathers quote the Apocryphal books, or even quote 
them as of authority. We have already seen what circumstances 
led the early Christians, and especially those of the Latin Church, 
into a somewhat excessive respect for the Apocryphal writings con- 
tained in the Septuagint and the ancient Latin Versions. 

At the end of the fourth century, and contemporary with Je- 
rome, lived Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. In his book De Doctrina 
Christiana,’ he enumerates the books of the ““ whole Canon of 
Scripture.” He reckons in this Canon the books of Tobit, Judith, 
two books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecolesiasticus. The au- 
thority of Augustine is very great. Yet is it not for a moment 
to be weighed against the testimony of the four preceding cen- 
turies, even if his testimony was undoubted and uniform. Yet 


1 Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 1v. § 35. 5 Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, 
2 Concil. Laodicen. Can. trx. Concil. δι ad calcem Oper. Cyprian. 
Quinisext. Can. 11. In Prologo Galeato, Tom. τ. Ὁ, 822. 
~ 8. Adv. Heres. v. txxvi. De Mensuris ka. Bened. 
εἰ eed Tom. 11. pp. 162, 180. 7 Lib. 11. 6. 8, edit. Benedict Tom 


4 Greg. Nazianz. Carm. xxx111. 111. p. 23 


164 


THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Atr. VI 


‘this is by no means the case. In the very passage above referred 
‘to, he speaks of a diversity of opinion concerning the sacred books, 
and advises, that those should be preferred which were received 
‘by all the Churches; that, of those not always received, those 
which the greater number and more important Churches received 
should be preferred before those which were sanctioned by fewer 


arid less authoritative Churches.! 


But moreover, passages from 


his other writings tell strongly against the canonicity of the books 
commonly called the Apocrypha. Thus he speaks of the Jews 
being without prophets from the captivity, and after the death of 


Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra, until Christ.? 


He tells us, 


that ‘‘the Jews did not receive the book of Maccabees as they did 
the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gives 


‘testimony, as to His own witnesses.” 4 


He tells us, that.the book 


of Judith was never in the Canon of the Jews.* He distinguishes 
between the books which are certainly Solomon’s, and the books 
of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, to which custom has given the 
sanction of his name, but which learned men agreed were not his. 
‘And many other proofs have been brought from his works, to 
show that he was at least doubtful concerning the authority of 
these books, notwithstanding his catalogue, which included them.® 

We now come to the Council of Carthage at which it is said 
that Augustine was present.- The date of this Council is disputed. 
It is usually considered as the third Council of Carthage, held a.p. 
897... It enumerates the books of Scripture as we have them now, 
together with Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two 


‘books of Maccabees.’ 


If Augustine was present, it is probable 


that we ought to interpret the decree of the Council with the same 
restrictions with which we plainly ought to interpret the words of 
St. Augustine, who, if he be not altogether inconsistent with him- 


1 Τὴ canonicis autem Scripturis, Ec- 
‘clesiarum Catholicarum quam plurium 
auctoritatem sequatur; inter quas sane 
ille sint que Apostolicas sedes habere et 
epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit 
igitur hunc modum in Scripturis canon- 
icis, ut eas, que ab omnibus accipiuntur 
Keclesiis Catholicis, preponat eis quas 
quedam non accipiunt: in eis vero que 
non accipiuntur ab omnibus, preponat 
eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, 
eis quas pauciores minorisque auctorita- 
tis lesie tenent. — Lib. 11. ¢. 8, edit. 
Benedict. Tom. 111. p. 23. 

2 De Civitat. Dei, Lib. xv11. cap. 24. 
Tom. vii. p. 487. Toto illo tempore ex 
ΗΝ de Babylonia, post Mala- 

, Aggeum, et Zachariam, qui tunic 


prophetaverunt, et Esdram, non habue- 
runt prophetas usque ad Salvatoris a*- 
ventum, &c. 

ὃ Contra Gaud. Lib. τ. ο. 81, § 38. Tom 
1x. p. 655. ! 

4 De Civitate Dei, Lib. xvitt. c. 26. 
Tom. vit. p. 508. In libro Judith: quem 
sane in Canone Scripturarum Judai non 
recepisse dicuntur. 

δ Civit. Dei, Lib. xvir. c. 20. Tom. 
vit, p. 483. Propter eloquii nonnullam 
similitudinem, ut Salomonis dicantur, ob- 
tinuit consuetudo: non autem esse ip- 
ἐν tom me ge doctiores. fully. saifted 

ὁ The whole question is 
by Bp. Cosin, Scholastical History of the 

‘anon, ch. VII. 

7 Conc. Carthag. 111. Can. XLVE. 


Sze. 1] FOR SALVATION. 165 


self, must assign a lower degree of authority to the doubtful books 
than to those which all received. But if it be not so, we must 
still remember that the Council of Carthage was a provincial, not 
a general Synod; that it was liable to err; and that in matter of 
history, if not in matter of doctrine, it actually did err; for by 
numbering five books of Solomon, it assigned to his authorship 
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which could not have been written ‘for 
centuries after his death. We cannot therefore bow to the au- 
thority of the Council of Carthage, even if that of St. Augustine be 
joined to it, against the testimony of all preceding ages, and, above 
all, against what has been shown to be the witness of our Lord 
Himself. ‘ 

The Council of Trent, however, in its fourth session, stamped 
with its authority all the books which had been enumerated by 
the Council of Carthage, with the addition of the book of Baruch; 
and added an anathema against every one who should not receive 
the whole Canon so put forth, and all the traditions of the Church 
besides.1 Thus did the Churches of the Roman communion set 
themselves against the Churches of God in the times of old, and 
against all the rest of Christendom in this present time. They, 
by implication, condemned those ancient fathers, who, as we have 
seen, almost with one voice preferred the Jewish Scriptures to the 
Apocryphal writings of the Septuagint. They anathematized, not 
only the Anglican, and all other reformed Churches, but as well 
the ancient Churches of the East, who with us reject the Apocry- 
pha, and adhere to the Scriptures which were sanctioned by the 
Lord.2_ We might speak more strongly of the danger of ““ cursing 
whom God hath not cursed;” but we may rest satisfied with the 
assurance that ‘‘ the curse causeless shall not come.” ὃ 


1Concil. Trid. Sess. rv. Decret. 1. veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, 


Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic 
decreto adscribendum censuit, ne cui 
dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint, 
qui ab ipso Synodo suscipiuntur. Sunt 
vero infra scripti : 

Test. V. Quinque Mosis, Jos., Judic., 
Ruth, 4 Reg., 2 Paralip., Esdre 1 et 2 
(qui dicitur Nehem.), Tobias, Judith, 
Esther, Job, Psalterium David, cu. Psal., 
Parab., Ecclesiastes, Cantic. Canticorum, 
Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esaias, Hiere- 
mias cum Baruch, Ezech., Daniel., 12 
Fool Minores, Duo Machabeorum 1 
et 


Test. N. Quattuor Evangelia, &c. &c. 
Si quis autem libros ipsos integros 
cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ec- 
clesia Catholica legi convenerunt, et in 


pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et 
traditiones predictas sciens et prudens 
contempserit, anathema sit. 

2See Suicer, 8. v. γραφὴ. See also 
Dr. Wordsworth’s Lectures on the Canon, 
Appendix B. No. tv., where documents 
are given, showing the agreement of the 
Eastern with the Anglican Church on 
the Canon of Scripture. 

8 On the Canon of the old Testament, 
see Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. v. γραφὴ ; Bp 
Cosin’s Scholastic History of the Canon; 
Bp. Marsh, Lectures, Part v1. On the Au- 
thority of the old Testament; Bp. Marsh’s 
Comparative View, chap. v. Dr. Words- 
worth, in his Aulsean Lectures on the 
Canon of’ Scripture, has thrown into the 
Appendix the most important passages 


166 


II. The Canon of the new Testament rests on the same 

authority as the Canon of the old. 
' As regards the number of books which are to be admitted as 
Canonical in the New Testament, there is no difference between 
the Anglican and any other branch of the Church of Christ. Yet 
on the mode of settling the Canon there is some difference. The 
Roman Church holds, that we receive the Scriptures, both of the 
old and new Testament, simply on the authority of the Church. 
It is said, that the Canon was not fixed till the end of the fourth 
century ; and it is inferred, that the Church then, by its plenary 
authority, determined which books were Scripture, and which were 
not. Thus virtually the Church has been made to hold a position 
superior to the Scriptures, as not only “ a witness and keeper,” but 
also a judge “of Holy Writ.” And though, in the first instance, 
such authority is conceded to the Church of the fourth century; 
yet, by implication and consequence, the same authority is claimed 
for the Church of this day; that is, not for the Church Universal, 
but for that portion of it which has claimed, as its exclusive title, 
the name of Catholic, ἡ. ὁ. the Church of Rome. 

On the other hand, some Protestants have been satisfied to 
rest the authority of the books of the new Testament on internal 
evidence, especially on the witness which the Spirit bears with 
our own spirits that they are the Word of God. The framers of 
the Belgic Confession, for instance, distinctly assert, that they re- 
ceive the Scriptures “not so much because the Church receives 
and sanctions them as Canonical, as because the Spirit witnesses 
with our consciences that they proceeded from God ; and especially 
because they, of themselves, attest their own authority and sanc- 
tity.” Ὁ 

Now the Church of England rejects altogether neither the au- 
thority of the Church, nor the internal testimony of the Scrip- 
tures. Yet she is not satisfied to rest her faith solely on the 
authoritative decree of any council in the fourth or fifth, still 
less in any later century; neither can she consent to forego all ex- 
ternal testimony, and trust to an internal witness alone, knowing 
that, as Satan can transform himself into an angel of light, so it 


pro canonicis recipiat et comprobet: 
quam quod Spiritus Sanctus nostris con- 
scientiis testetur illos a Deo emanasse: 
et eo maxime quod ipsi etiam per se 


THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


on the subject from the Jewish andearly _ 
Christian writers, in a form more con- 
venient than they may be seen in Bp. 
Cosin’s most valuable work, as in the 


latter they are scattered through the 
notes, whilst in Dr. Wordsworth’s book 
<a are given in a compact form at the 
en 


1 Idque non tam quod Ecclesia illos 


sacram hance suam authoritatem et sanc- 
titatem testentur atque comprobent. — 
Confess. Belyica, Art. v.; Sylloge Con- 

Canon, 


fessionum, p. 828; Jones, On the 


Part 1. ch. γι. 


Src. II.] FOR SALVATION. 167 


is possible, that what seems the guidance of God’s Spirit may, if 
not proved, be really the suggestion of evil spirits Hence we 
think that there is need of the external word, and of the Church, 
to teach; lest what seems a light within be but darkness counter. 
feiting light: and we know, that the fertile source of almost every 
fanatical error, recorded in history, has been a reliance on inward 
illumination, to the neglect of outward testimony.) 

The principle, then, which we assert, is this, that Christ gave 
authority to His Apostles to teach and to write, that He promised 
them infallible guidance, and that therefore all Apostolical writings 
are divinely inspired. We have only to inquire what writings were 
Apostolical ; and for this purpose we have recourse to testimony, or, 
if the word be preferred, to tradition. The testimony or tradition 
of the primitive Church is the ground on which the fathers them- 
selves received the books of the new Testament as Apostolical ; 
and, on the same ground, we receive them. We gladly add to this 
every weight which can be derived from internal evidence, or from 
the authority of early councils; for we know, that no argument 
should be neglected, which may fairly confirm our faith. But the 
first ground on which we receive the new Testament is, that it 
can be proved to have come from the pens or the dictation of the 
Apostles of Christ, and that to those we aid τς: Christ promised 
infallibility in matters of faith. 

1. The promise of inspiration and infallibility appears in such 
passages as the following : — 

«The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
will send in My Name, He shall teach you all things, and bring 
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” 
John xiv. 25, 26. 

“‘When He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you 
into all truth, and He will show you things to come.” John 
xvi. 13. 

“Tt is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” Mark xiii. 11. 

And what Christ promised, His Apostles claimed. They speak 
of having the deep things of God revealed to them by His Spirit, 
1 Cor. 1.10. They declare their own Gospel to be the truth, and 


1 There is a passage much to the pur- 
pose, quoted by Jones (On the Canon, 
Part 1. ch. vi.) from the Preface to Bax- 
ter’s Suints’ Rest. ‘ For my part, I con- 
fess, I could never boast of any such 
testimony or light of the Spirit nor rea- 
son neither, which, without human tes- 
timony, would have made me believe 


that the book of Canticles is canonical 
and written by Solomon, and the book 
of Wisdom apocryphal, and written by 
Philo, &e. Nor could I have known all 
or any historical books, such as Joshua, 
Judges. Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, 
Ezra, Nehemiah, &c., to be written by di- 
vine inspiration, "put by tradition, &c.” 


168 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


anathematize all who preach any other Gospel, Gal. i. 8. They 
speak of “the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made 
known to the sons of men,” as being now revealed to the “ Apos- 
tles and prophets by the Spirit,” Ephes. iii. 4, 5; and treat the 
Gospel as a faith “ once delivered to the saints,” Jude 3. 

If therefore we believe the new Testament at all, we believe 
that Jesus Christ gave a promise of inspiration to the Apostles ; 
and that the Apostles claimed the promise, professed to have 
received the inspiration, and accordingly assumed to be the only 
infallible depositaries of the doctrines of the Gospel. 

2. We have therefore, in the next place, simply to determine 
the genuineness of the writings which profess to be Apostolical, 
and our labour will be finished. If we know that any book was 
written by an Apostle, we know that, as regards doctrine and faith, 
it is inspired and infallible, and therefore we receive it into the 
Canon of Scripture. The primitive Church acted on this "Ὡ-" 
ple; and we act upon the same. 

More or less, all ancient writings must be subjected to a test 
like this. If we wish to know whether certain books were written 
by Cicero, or Cesar, or Tacitus, we examine the evidence, and 
decide according to it. The simple fact that they have ever been 
received as theirs, is a strong presumption that they proceeded 
from them. But still we mostly require farther proof. 

Now, it is infinitely more important to be assured that a book 
was written by St. John or St. Paul, than to know that one was 
written by Cesar or Cicero. And accordingly God, in His Provi- 
dence, has afforded us far more abundant evidence concerning the 
genuineness of the different books of the new Testament, than can 
be found concerning any other writings of antiquity. That evi- 
dence is principally dependent on testimony, but is not resolvable 
into mere authority. It is the witness of the Church, not merely — 
its sanction, to which we appeal. 

Now the position of the Church in its earliest ages was such, 
that its witness on this subject is singularly unexceptionable. Dur- 
ing the very lifetimes of the Apostles, it had spread through the 
civilized world. Europe, Asia, Africa, had all heard the voice of 
the Apostles, and all had flourishing Churches long before the death 
of the last of that sacred body. The books which the Apostles 
had written were therefore not merely to be found in one or two 
obscure corners of the world, but they were treasured up, and read 
and reverenced in Rome and Alexandria, in Antioch and Ephesus, 
in Corinth and Thessalonica, very probably in Spain and Gaul and 


See. IL] FOR SALVATION. 169 


Arabia, perhaps even in the remote region of Britain itself. There 
were therefore witnesses in every corner of the globe. Even 
where the arms of Rome had not carried conquest, the feet of 
Apostles had carried good tidings of peace. In many of these 
Churches, the writers of the sacred books were well known and 
constant visitors; so that Epistles as from them, or Gospels with 
their names, could not have been palmed off upon their converts, 
who could continually have rectified errors of this kind by direct 
appeal to the living sources of Divine instruction. The writers of 
the new Testament themselves took care that what they wrote 
should be widely circulated, and extensively known, when first 
they wrote it. St. Paul bids the Colossians send his epistle to 
them to be read as well in the Church of Laodicea (Col. iv. 16). 
He charges the Thessalonians that they should suffer his epistle to 
be “read to all the holy brethren” (1 Thess. v. 27). We are 
informed concerning the Gospels, that they were written, the first 
by an Apostle, for the use of the Church of Judea;1 the second, 
by St. Mark, under the dictation of St. Peter,? for the use of those 
Christians amongst whom St. Peter had been preaching, and who 
wished to have the substance of it preserved in writing ;° that St. 
Luke, the companion of St. Paul, wrote his Gospel at St. Paul’s 
dictation ; and that St. John wrote his in his last days at Ephesus, 
having first seen and approved the other Gospels, writing his own 
as supplementary to them.® 

These and similar considerations show that the writings of the 
new Testament must have had a great degree of publicity, and 
therefore great. protection against forgery and fraud, from their 
earliest publication. Every separate Church, and every separate 
city, to which they spread, was a guard against corruption, and a 
check upon its neighbours. But at the same time, wide as the 
empire of Christ had spread, it was not then, as now, a collec- 
tion of disunited communities, but one living, intercommunicating 
whole. The early records with one voice proclaim that all Chris- 
tendom was as one man. There was a circulation of life-blood 
through the whole. A Christian could not go from Rome to 
Alexandria, or from Alexandria to Ephesus, but he bore a talis- 
man with him, which made him welcomed as a brother. And 
the degree of intercourse which took place in the very. earliest 
times between far distant Churches, is apparent by the letter of 


1 Euseb. H. Ε΄. 111. 24; Iren. 111. 1. 4 Tren. 111. 1. 
2 Tren. 111. 1; 111. 11. 5 Euseb. 111. 24; Hieron. De Viris ἢ. 
8 Euseb. 1. 15; vi. 14, on the authority Justribus, s. v. Joannes. 

of Clemens Alexandrinus. 


170 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, by the solicitude of 
Ignatius for the different cities, to which he wrote on the eve of his 
martyrdom, by the journey of Polycarp from Smyrna to Rome to 
discuss the Paschal controversy, by the appointment of Irenzus, 
a native of Asia, to the chief bishopric in Gaul, and by numerous 
similar facts. 

We have therefore the following securities that the Churches 
from the first would preserve the writings of the Apostles safe and 
in their integrity. 

(1) The presence of the Apostles with them, and frequent 
intercourse among them, whilst the sacred books were in writing. 

(2) The publicity given to these books from the first. 

(8), The wide diffusion of the Church throughout the’ world, 
so that copies would be multiplied everywhere, and one part of the 
Church would be a check against forgeries in another. 

(4) The intimate communion of every part of Christendom 
with the rest, so that every facility was afforded to every portion 
of the Church, of knowing what were the Apostles’ writings, and 
of guarding against mistake. 

(5) To these we may add, that there were divisions in many 
Churches even from the Apostles’ days, (see 1 Cor. iii. 3,4; Gal. 
ii. 4, &c.) which necessarily created independent witnesses, even 
in individual Churches, each party being a check on the other. 

(6) And lastly, that in God’s Providence the Apostle St. John 
lived at the great city of Ephesus for thirty years after the works 
of the other Apostles had been written ; and was thus living in the 
midst of the civilized world, as a final and authoritative court of 
appeal, if there could be any doubt as to which were Apostolical, 
and which Apocryphal writings. 

Can we doubt then, that the ptimitive Church was a body so 
remarkably constituted that its testimony united, on this particular 
subject, the singularly opposite merits of unanimity and yet of 
mutual independence; that it enjoyed the most extraordinary 
powers for knowing the truth, with no interest in corrupting it, 
and without the power to corrupt it, even if it had the will? 

We conclude therefore, that the Scriptures which the primitive 
Church held as Apostolical, must have been so. And we may 
add, that, owing to the wide diffusion of the Church throughout 
the world, it would have been impossible for a forger in after-times 
to pass off his forgery on the Church ; for, if it was received in 
one place, it would speedily be rejected i in another, and convicted 
of falsehood, on the sure ground of novelty. The primitive 


Sec. IL] FOR SALVATION. 171 


Church, therefore, was singularly fitted by Providence to be a wit- 
ness and keeper of Holy Writ; even a witness and a keeper of 
it against future as well as present corruptions. 

It is impossible to give more than a very brief sketch of the 
evidence which we derive from the early Church, thus qualified to 
bear testimony. We may classify it in the following order :— 

(1) Manuscripts of the original. 

(2) Versions in numerous languages. 

(3) Catalogues. 

(4) Quotations and references, and commentaries. 

(1) We have manuscripts of the new Testament Scriptures 
in very great numbers, preserved to us in different quarters of the 
globe. The testimony which these MSS. bear, all tends to the 
same point; namely, the general integrity of the text of the new 
Testament, as we have it now. These MSS. indeed are so far 
“different from each other as to be independent witnesses; for, 
though they agree in preserving the same general text, they differ 
in verbal minutiz, and have various readings, like MSS. of all 
ancient authors; and it is found that these MSS. can be classed 
into different families; so that each family bears a line of testi- 
mony distinct from the others. Thus Griesbach distinguished the 
Greek MSS. into three distinct texts: the Alexandrine, which he 
found to correspond with the reading of the famous Codex Alex- 
andrinus and with the quotations of Origen, the great Alexandrian 
critic ; the Byzantine, including those MSS. which in their pecu- 
liarities agree with the MSS. which have been brought to us direct 
from Constantinople ; the Western, to which belong the MSS. 
which have been chiefly found in Europe, and which in their 
peculiarities resemble the Latin version. Other critics (as Mat- 
thai, Scholz, &c.) have made different arrangements and classifi- 
cations ; but all agree in the observation, that we have distinct 
streams of MSS. coming down to us from the most remote antiq- 
uity, and preserving in the main the same text of the new Testa- 
ment, though differing in minute particulars, sufficient to constitute 
them in some degree independent witnesses, and existing in the 
different quarters of the globe. It is true, the most ancient of 
these MSS. is probably not older than the fourth century ; but it 
is well known to all scholars, how very ancient a MS. of the fourth 
century is considered, and how very few MSS. in the world have 
anything approaching to such antiquity ; and it must be borne in 
mind, that a MS. of the fourth century represents a text of much 
earlier date, from which it must have been copied ; and when we 


172 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


have many independent MSS., and some of them of nearly the 
same great antiquity, we know that they respectively and inde- 
pendently bear witness to the existence of an older text or texts, 
to which they owe their original. ᾿ 

Now here is one evidence of the genuineness of our new Testa- 
ment writings. They are preserved to us in innumerable MSS. 
in all parts of the world ; MSS. whose authority is of the highest 
possible character. The books which are thus preserved are not 
the Apocryphal, but the generally received Canonical books of the 
new Testament. 

(2) We have a great number of ancient versions of the new 
Testament Scriptures, in the various languages which were ver- 
nacular in the early ages of the Church. Thus we have versions 
in. Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and 
other languages. The Versions which are supposed to have the 
greatest claim to antiquity, are the Latin and the Syriac. That © 
there was a very ancient Latin version, there can be no manner of 
doubt ; for the rapid diffusion of the Gospel in Europe and Africa 
made it a matter of great consequence that the new Testament 
Scriptures should speedily be translated into the Latin tongue. 
The ancient Italic may, therefore, very probably have been made 
in the days of the Apostles. The only difficulty of importance 
is the many alterations which the Latin Versions subsequently 
underwent, which make it hard to ascertain what MS. fairly repre- 
sents the most ancient text. Yet all the Latin Versions of any 
authority, at present in existence, give their testimony, in the 
main, to the integrity of the text of the new Testament as we 
have it now. ‘The Peschito Syriac is by most scholars considered 
to be the oldest of all the versions; and it has the advantage of 
being a Version from the Greek into the vernacular tongue of our 
Lord and His Apostles. It is by many thought to be a work of 
the first century, and may have been seen by the Apostle St. 
John. The Syrians themselves held the tradition that it was 
made by St. Mark. The testimony which it bears concerning 
the Canon of the new Testament is most satisfactory, so far as it 
goes. It contains, in literal translation, the four Gospels, the Acts, 
thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 
Epistle of St. James, the first Epistle of St. Peter, and the first of 
St. John, — that is to say, all our present Canon, except the Apoc- 
alypse, the Epistle of St. Jude, the second of St. Peter, and the 
second and third of St. John. There are many reasons why so 
ancient a Version should not have contained these last-named 


Sec. IL] Γ 


books. If it were made so early as has been supposed, some of 
the excluded books may not have been written. At all events, it 
is highly probable that they were not all at once collected into one 
volume, and some shorter and later pieces are especially likely to 
have been at first omitted.! 

(3) We have among very. early fathers, regular catalogues 
of the books of the new Testament, as received and read in the 
Church. 

Origen, the most learned of the Greek fathers, who was’ born 
A.D. 185, ὁ. ὁ. less than ninety years from the death of St. John, 
gives a catalogue exactly corresponding with our present Canon.” 

Eusebius, another most learned and accurate inquirer, born at 
Ceesarea, in Palestine, a. Ὁ. 270, gives a catalogue exactly corre- 
sponding with our own, except that he speaks of the Epistles of 
St. James, St. Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, as generally received, 
yet doubted of by some ; and says of the Apocalypse, that, though 
some doubted, yet others received it; and he himself received it, 
and considered it as canonical.® 

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, a. Ὁ. 326, and who therefore 
must have been born in the third wiht gives a catalogue ex- 
actly corresponding with ours.* 

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, a. Ὁ. 849, gives the same list, with 
the exception of the Apocalypse.® 

The Council of Laodicea, a. Ὁ. 364, gives the same list as- St. 
Cyril.® 

Epiphanius, a. Ὁ. 370, gives the same list as ours.’ 

Gregory Nazianzen, a.p. 875, who was born about the time 
of the Council of Nice, gives the same list as ours, omitting the 
Apocalypse.® 

Jerome, who was born a. Ὁ. 329, was ‘educated at Rome, and 
was ordained presbyter at Antioch, a. Ὁ. 378, gives the same list 
as ours; except that he observes that most persons in the Latin 


FOR SALVATION. 173 


1 On the importance of the Syriac ver- 
sion, see Jones, On the Canon, Pt. 1. ch. 
XIV.-XIX. 

2 Comment. in Matt. ap. Euseb. H. ΠΕ. 
vi. 25. In this catalogue he omits St. 
James and St. Jude. But in his thir- 
teenth Homily on Genesis he speaks of 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, 
James, and Jude, as the authors of the 
books of the new Testament. In his 
seventh Homily on the book of Joshua, 
if we may trust the Latin translation of 
Rufinus, in which alone it exists, he enu- 
merates all the books which we now 
have. See Jones, On the Canon, Pt. 1. 


ch. vi11.; Bp. Marsh’s Lectures, Pt. v. On 
Authority of the New Testament, Lect 
xxiv.; Lardner, 11. ch. xxxvIII. 

8 A. E. ται. 25. 

* Ex Festali Epist. xxx1x. Tom. 11. p. 
961; Edit. Benedict. Tom. 1. p. 88, Co- 
lon. 1686. 

5 Cateches. tv. ὃ 36. He makes men- 
tion of certain forged Gospels, pevderi- 
yeaa, and ascribes to the Manicheans ἃ 
Gospel according to St. Thomas. 

® Concil. Laodicen. Can. rx. 

™ Heres. 76, c. 5. 

8 Gregor. Nazianz. Carm. xxx111. 


174 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


Church did not consider the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul’s, 
though he himself held that it was so. 

Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia, contemporary and friend of 
Jerome, gives the same catalogue as we now possess.” 

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a. ἢ. 894, (born a. p. 355,) gives 
the same catalogue as ours.’ 

The Council of Carthage (a. p. 397?) gives the same cata- 
logue.* 

(4) But, besides these formal catalogues, we have from the 
very first ages a series of quotations, references, and allusions to 
our sacred books, and in some cases regular harmonies and com- 
mentaries upon them. 

This is a wide subject. It occupies the first five volumes in the 
octavo edition of Lardner’s most valuable work on The Credibility 
of the Gospel History. An account of it here must necessarily be 
brief. 

The writings of the Apostolical fathers are few in number, and 
there are many reasons why they should not quote so frequently 
and fully from the books of the new Testament, as those who suc- 
ceeded them. Yet there are, nevertheless, a considerable number 
of references and quotations from the books which we possess as the 
new Testament Scriptures, even in them. 

Clement, who probably died before St. John, especially ascribes 
the first Epistle to the Corinthians to St. Paul. Words of our 
blessed Lord, found in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and 
St. Luke, are recommended with a high degree of respect, but 
without the names of the Evangelists; and there is reason to think 
that he alludes to the Acts, the Epistle to the Romans, the two 
Epistles to the Corinthians, and divers other of the Epistles of the 
new Testament.® 

Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom very soon after the death of 
St. John, in writing to the Ephesians, ascribes the Epistle to that 
Church to St. Paul, and cites several passages from it. He alludes 
to St. Matthew’s, St. Luke’s, and probably to St. John’s Gospel ; 
also, probably, to the Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Gala- 
tians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 and 3 
John. He appears also to have expressions denoting collections of 
the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles.® 

1 Epist. τι. ad Panlinum. Opp. Tom. 1v. 8.126 Doctrina Christiana, Lib. τι. ο. 8. 
p. 574; Ed. Bened. On the Epistle to Tom. 111. p. 23 : 


the Hebrews, see De Viris Illustribus, 8.  * Concil. Carthag. ται. Can. ¥LVII. 
v. Paulus. 5 Lardner, 11. ch. 11. 


2 Kxposit. in Symb. Apostol. § 86, ad ® Ibid. 11. ch. v. 
calc. Goer. Cyprian. aes 


Sxc. 11. FOR SALVATION. 175 


Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of St. John, quotes 
Philippians, and speaks of St. Paul as having written to that 
Church. He quotes also expressions from St. Matthew and St. 
Luke, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians; and there 
are manifest references to Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 
Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John, and probably to the 
Hebrews.' 

If Barnabas and Hermas are to be reckoned Apostolical, although 
there are manifest references to the new Testament in their works, 
yet the nature of their writings makes it most improbable that 
they should have quoted much from it, and accounts for their com- 
parative silence.” 

Papias, who was well acquainted with Polycarp, and, as some 
think, even with St. John, and was an anxious inquirer about all 
that had come from the Apostles and followers of Christ, bears 
testimony to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, quotes the 
first Epistle of St. Peter and the first of St. John, appears to have 
a reference to the book of Acts, and there is every reason to sup- 
pose he received the Apocalypse. There are no works of his re- 
maining, except a fragment preserved by Eusebius.? 

Justin Martyr, the first of the fathers of whom we have any 
considerable remains, was converted to Christianity about a. Ὁ. 133, 
flourished chiefly about a.p. 140, ὁ, e. 40 years after the death of 
St. John, and died a martyr about a.p. 164 or 167. He has 
many quotations from the four Gospels, which he refers to under 
the name of the Memoirs of the Apostles. He has, moreover, 
referred to the Acts, many of the Epistles, and expressly assigns 
the Book of Revelation to St. John. In his first Apology, he tells 
us that the memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the 
Prophets were read in the assemblies for public worship, and dis 
courses made upon them by the presiding presbyter.§ 


1 Lardner. 11. ch. vi. 


2 Ibid. 11. ch. 1. 1v. 

8 Euseb. H. Ε΄. Lib. 111. cap. 89; Lard- 
ner, ii. ch. 1x. 

* ᾿Απομνημφνεύματα τῶν ᾿Ἀποστόλων, 
which he explains by ἁ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια. 
— Apol. τ. p. 98, B. 

Bishop Marsh in his dissertation On 
the Origin of the Four Gospels, ch. xv., 
supposes that Justin does not allude to 
our present Gospels, but to a certain orig- 
inal document, which the Bishop sup- 
poses to have existed, which was early 
composed by the Apostles, and from 
which the Evangelists compiled their 
several Gospels. The words ἁ καλεῖται 


εὐαγγέλια he considers an interpolation. 
He argues, that Memoirs of the Apostles 
more probably mean a single work than 
a collection of works, and that Justin’s 
quotations are not exact from our pres 
ent Gospels. His arguments are consid- 
ered by Bishop Kaye, Writings of Justin 
Martyr, ch. vi11. The last-named prel- 
ate seems to have clearly proved that 
there is no reason for doubting that our 
present Gospels are those cited by Justin, 
though, at times, he rather quotes the 
purport than the very words of a pas- 
sage. 
Apol. τ. p. 98; Lardner, τι. ch. x. 


176 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


Tatian, the disciple of Justin Martyr, composed a harmony of 
the Gospels, called Diatessaron.) 

The circular Epistle of the Ghandi of Vienne and Lyons, 
concerning the sufferings of their martyrs in the reign of Marcus 
Antoninus, uses language from the Gospels of St. Luke and St. 
John, Acts, Romans, Philippians, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Reve- 
lation.? 

Irenzeus, who was a hearer of Polycarp, the disciple of St John,® 
and became Bishop of Lyons, a.p. 177, assures us that there were 
four Gospels, and no more,‘ all of which he has largely quoted, 
with the names of their writers, and has given an, account of their 
composition.> He refers the Acts to St. Luke. He quotes all St, 
Paul’s Epistles, except Philemon and the Hebrews, also 1 Peter, 
1 and 2 John, and the Apocalypse, which he expressly assigns 
to St. John the Apostle,® and probably the Epistle of St. James. 
“« His quotations from the Gospels are so numerous that they oc- 
cupy more than twelve folio columns in the index of Scripture 
passages annexed to the Benedictine edition.” 7 

Theophilus of Antioch (circ. a.p. 170) quotes St. Matthew, 
St. Luke, several of St. Paul’s Epistles, and we are assured by 
Eusebius that in his work against Hermogenes he quoted the 
Apocalypse.8 

Clement of Alexandria, who lived at the end of the second 
century, about 100 years after the completion of the Canon of 
Scripture, quotes all the four Gospels, and especially tells us the 
origin of St. Mark’s.® He ascribes the Acts to St. Luke; quotes 
all St. Paul’s Epistles, except the short Epistle to Philemon, and 
ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul, though he thinks 
it was written in Hebrew by St. Paul, and translated into Greek 
by St. Luke.® He quotes three of the Catholic Epistles, namely, 
1 John, 1 Peter, Jude; for it is doubtful whether he refers ex- 
pressly to St. James, or the second Epistle of St. Peter, and the 
second and third of St. John. The Apocalypse he expressly as- 
cribes to St. John.?° 

Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, of the same date with Clem- 
ent, quotes all the books of the new Testament, except perhaps 


1 Lardner, 11. ch. x111. is used of the seeing of the A 

2 Ibid, ch. xvz. not, as some think, of the duration of 
8 Hieronym. De V. J. 8. vy. Irenewus. St. John’s own life. 

4 Adv. Heres. 111. 11. 7 Bp. Marsh’s Lectures, Pt. v. Lect. 


§ bid. a1. 1. xxiv.; Lardner, 11. ch. xvi. 

δ. Adv. Heres. 1v. 20; v. 26. The ὃ Lardner, 11. ch. xx. 
time of seeing the Apocalypse is men- 9 Euseb. H. Ε. γι. 14. 
tioned v. 30; namely, towards the end of 10 Lardner, 11. γ- πα! ; Bp. Kaye’s 
the reign of Domitian, if the word ἑωράϑη .. Clement of Alex 


Sec. II] FOR SALVATION. 177 


St. James’s Epistle, the second of St. Peter, and the third of St. 
John. The Epistle to the. Hebrews he assigns to Barnabas.1 Dr. 
Lardner has observed, that ““ There: are perhaps more and larger 
quotations of the new Testament in this one Christian author 
than of all the works of Cicero, though of so uncommon excel- 
lence for thought and style, in the writers of all characters for 
several ages.” 

We are now arrived at Origen, who, as we have seen, gives a 
complete catalogue of the new Testament, as we have it now.® 

Dionysius of Alexandria, a.p. 247, quotes the Gospels, Acts, 
St. Paul’s Epistles, especially ascribing the Hebrews to St. Paul, 
the three Epistles of St. John. On the Apocalypse he has a long 
dissertation, from which it appears that it was very. generally 
received by Christians as written by St. John, though he himself 
inclines to attribute it to another John, whom he considered a holy 
and divinely inspired man.+4 

Cyprian, a. Ὁ. 250, quotes all the new Testament. except the 
Epistles to Philemon and the Hebrews, the third of St. John, the 
second of St. Peter, and St. James. The Apocalypse he often 
quotes as St. John’s.® 

Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, circ. A.D. 260, con- 
stantly quotes or refers to the Gospels and Acts, most of St. Paul’s 
Epistles, especially the Hebrews, also 1 Peter, 1 John, and the 
Apocalypse.® 

Eusebius has already been adduced as a witness, having given 
_ acatalogue of the new Testament Scriptures, as we have them 
now. 

It is unnecessary to continue the list farther. We have already 
seen that from fhis time we may find in the works of the fathers 
full catalogues of the books of the new Testament; and the num- 
ber of quotations from them in their writings grows fuller and more 
abundant. 

We must add, that heretics quoted and admitted the same Scrip- 
tures, with the exception of those outrageous heretics, such as the 
Gnostics and the Manichees, who were rather heathen philosophers, 
with a tinge of Christianity, than Christians with a defilemem 
of philosophy. Thus the Montanists, the Donatists,’ Arius,’ Pho- 
tinus,? Lucifer,” and other schismatics and heretics of the first 


1 De Pudicitia, ας. 20. + 6 Tbid. 111. ch. nvr. 

* Lardner, τι. ch. xxvit. See also 7 Ibid. ch. rxvit. 
Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, ch. v. p. 807. 8 Ibid. ch. yxrx. 

8 Lardner, ch. xxxvIII. 9 Tbid. ch. LXxxxmx. 

4 Ibid. 11. ch. ΧΙ:ΙΙ. 10 Tbid. ch. xer. 


5 Thid. 111. ch. xxIv. 


178 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


four centuries, received the same sacred books with the Catholie 
Christians. 

Not only heretics, moreover; but Liedthinkie and persecutors knew 
the sacred books and sought to destroy them. Thus in the perse- 
cution of Diocletian, there was an edict A. ἢ. 303, that the Chris- 
tian Churches should be destroyed, ang their Scriptures burned. 
Accordingly, great search was made for the books of the new 
Testament, and those Christians who, to save themselves, gave 
up their books to the persecutors, acquired the opprobrious name 
of Traditores.' 

When Constantine the Great embraced Christianity, finding 
that the persecution under Diocletian had diminished the number 
of copies of the new Testament, he authorized Eusebius Bishop of 
Cesarea to get fifty copies of the new Testament written out for 
him, desiring that they should be skilfully and carefully written on 
fine parchment.” 

We have seen then, that numerous MSS., the most ancient 
Versions, the catalogues given us by the fathers, quotations and 
references from the time of the earliest Apostolical father, gradu- 
ally increasing in number, yet numerous from the beginning, the 
consent of heretics, the enmity of persecutors, —all witness to the 
existence, from the earliest times, of the new Testament Scrip- 
tures; and all this testimony is uniform in favour of the very 
books which we now possess. 

It may be added, that, although it is quite clear that there 
were certain early writers, such.as Clement, Barnabas, and Her- 
mas, highly esteemed, and whose writings were read in some 
Churches; and though there were some Apoeryphal books pro- 
fessing to be the works of the Apostles and Evangelists: yet there 
is good reason to assert that these books are not quoted by the 
fathers as authority, and were not received by the Church as 
Canonical Scripture.’ 

To the external evidence, the internal proofs of genuineness 
might be added, if time and space would allow. Books which 
are forgeries generally show, when carefully scrutinized, plain 
proofs that they are not his whose name they bear. The lan- 
guage, the ideas, the statements of facts, some little circumstance 
of date or place, some circumstance connected with the character, 
knowledge, or condition of the author, are found inconsistent and 


1 Lardner, ch. Lxvi. 8 See Jones, On the Canon, Part 11. ch. 
2 Euseb. Lib. rv. c. 86; Lardner, ch. 1. Observ. 111.; Lardner, ch. x. XIV 
Lxx. XVII. XXII. XXXVIII. LYI. ὅτ, 


Sec. IL] FOR SALVATION. 179 


incapable of being explained. Or if this be not the case, there is 

a markedly biwied effort to avoid all this, and to make the forgery 
appear a genuine work. But the different books of the new 
Testament, though written by eight different hands, under vastly 
different sailiticns, have yet defied the efforts of critics to dis- 
prove their genuineness. ‘They only come out the brighter from 
every fiery trial. Their style and language is just what we should 
expect from the writers to whom they are ascribed. They abound 
in minute particulars, most naturally and simply introduced, which 
correspond accurately with the state of things existing at the time 
and in the place in which the authors wrote. Coincidences have 
been pointed out, which the cleverest forger could never have 
designed, and which only patient searching could have detected ; 
whereas, if such coincidences had been designsil, they would ὌΝ 
been put prominently forward to meet the view.! In this, and 
in similar manners, we may confirm by internal examination the 
results deduced from external testimony. 

But before we conclude this sketch we must observe, that, in 
the accounts of the catalogues and quotations given by the differ- 
ent early fathers, we could not but remark that some books were 
less universally quoted, and classed in the catalogues, than others. 
We learn, as early as Origen, and more clearly afterwards from 
Eusebius, that, though the Church generally received the Canon 
of the new Destuinelt as we receive it now, yet some few books 
were by some persons considered as doubtful. 

Eusebius makes three distinct classes of books,” namely : — 

ὁμολογούμενοι, those universally received ; 

ἀντιλεγόμενοι, those generally received, but doubted of by 
some ; 

νόθοι, i, e. Apocryphal books rejected by all but heretics. 

In like manner, Cyril of Jerusalem distinguishes between those 
παρὰ πᾶσιν ὁμολογούμενα, owned by all, and ἀμφιβαλλόμενα, doubted 
of by some.® 

Now the undoubted books according to Eusebius, which all 
received, were the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. 
Paul, one of St. Peter, one of St. John. He adds, that Christians 
generally received the Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, 
Jude, Revelation. These he esteemed canonical, but tells us that 
some doubted concerning their genuineness. He also mentions 
the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, and the Pastor of Hermas, 


1 See Paley’s Hore Pauline, passim ; 2H. E. x1. 3, 25. 
Marsh’s Lect. Pt. v. Lect. xxvi. 8 Cyril. Cateches, tv. 36 


a 


180 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


as esteemed useful by many, but not to be considered a part of 
Canonical Scripture.!_ Now the principal reasons for doubting the 
genuineness and Canonicity of the books which Eusebius speaks 
of as ἀντιλεγόμενα, were of this nature. The Hebrews has not 
St. Paul’s name, and is thought to be different in style from his 
other writings.? St. James might not have been an Apostle, and 
therefore his Epistle might have no claim to be in the Canon. 
The Apocalypse introduces the name of St. John, contrary to that 
Apostle’s custom elsewhere ; and some supposed it was written 
by John the elder, a person whom Papias pep gain: and not by 
St. John the Apostle. 

To take first the Epistle of St. James ; there j is strong reason to 
believe, that, whether the writer was James the son of Zebedee, 
or James the Lord’s brother, he was in any case an Apostle ; for 
‘James the Lord’s brother is in Scripture called an Apostle,‘ and 
was in all probability the same as James the son of Alphzus, or 
Cleopas, (the two names being very probably identical,) his mother 
‘being Mary the sister of the Virgin Mary.® So that there is no 
reason to exclude his Epistle from the Canon, because he was not 
an Apostle. But farther, his Epistle is in the Syriac version, and 
the authority of the Syrian Church is very important on this head ; 
for the Church of Syria bordered on Palestine, where St. James, 
the Lord’s brother, was bishop, and spoke the same language as 
‘the natives of Palestine itself. We must remember, too, that 
Eusebius tells us that this Epistle was received by the great 
majority of Christians; and that it is by no means wonderful that 
an Epistle, written by the Bishop of Jerusalem to the Jews, should 
not have become known to the Grecian Churches so soon as 


others; and hence more doubt might arise about it than about . 


other Hpistles.® 

Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, we learn 
‘that the former was not fully admitted by the Latin, nor the latter 
by the Greek Church among Canonical Scriptures.’ 

Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we may observe that the 


absence of the Apostle’s name may be fully accounted for by the. 


fact that he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, not of the circum- 
cision ; and therefore, when he writes to the Jews, he does not 
‘put his name and claim his Apostleship, as not wishing to put for- 


. 1 Euseb. H. E. as above; Lardner, ὅ See Lardner, v1, ch. xvz. 

UXXII. 5 See Marsh’s Lect. Pt. v. Lect. xxv. 
3 Hieronym. De V. I. in Paul. τ Hieronym. Dardan. Epist. σχχιχ 
Sos tpl πε θ, De V. 1.8. v. Paul. 1602. 


8xc. 111 FOR SALVATION. 181 


ward the same claim to authority over the Jews which he asserts 
over the Gentile Churches.'!' But the Epistle is probably referred 
to by Clement of Rome,? and perhaps by Polycarp.2 We have 
in its favour the testimony of Origen, Clement of Alexandria, 
Dionysius of Jerusalem, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, 
Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome.* It is.in the Syriac Canon. And, 
as regards the supposed difference of style from the general writ- 
ings of St. Paul, the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, that St. 
Paul wrote the Epistle in Hebrew or Syriac, and that it was 
translated by St. Luke into Greek, would explain all the difficulty. 
Yet Mr. Forster appears to have proved, by most careful and 
accurate comparison, that the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
notwithstanding the apparent dissimilarity, has all the peculiarity 
of the writings of St. Paul, a peculiarity so great that the genu- 
ineness of the Epistle can hardly be questioned.® 

The Apocalypse, which is the only other book of any consid- 
erable length which is doubted, is ascribed by Papias to John, 
probably the Apostle. It is the only book which Justin Martyr 
mentions by name, and he expressly assigns it to St. John. 
Irenzeus constantly quotes it and refers it to St. John. Tertullian 
and Theophilus of Antioch quote it. Clement of Alexandria 
assigns it to St. John. So do Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, 
Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, the Council 
of Carthage.’ All these are witnesses of great importance, and 
a large number of them living within a century of the date when 
the book in question was composed. Especially Papias, Justin 
Martyr, and Irenzus, the very earliest fathers after those called 
Apostolical, speak much concerning it, and quote frequently from 
it. Melito, a contemporary of Justin Martyr and Irenzeus, is also, 
according to Eusebius, a witness to the Apocalypse of St. John.é 

We may now close our brief view of the evidence concerning 
the Canon of the new Testament; and whilst we rejoice that 
councils in the fourth century, weighing the evidence, decided on 
the Canon, and settled it as we have it now, we cannot admit that 
the present Church receives the Scriptures, whether of the old 


1 Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. ἢ. E. νι. 
14; Hieron. Zn Galat. cap. 1. 

2 Eusebius observes that Clement uses 
the very language of the Epistle. — H. 
Ε. 111. 38. It may be added, that the 
writer of St. Clement’s Epistle seems 
to have been thoroughly imbued with 
the spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

8 Lardner, ch. VI. 

* See the lists above given. 


5 Ap. Euseb. H. EF. νι. 14. 

ὁ Forster, On the Apostolical Authority 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

7 See the lists and authorities referred 
to above. 

8 Kai λόγος αὐτοῦ (Μελίτωνος) περὶ προ- 
φητείας, καὶ ὁ περὶ φιλονεξίας " καὶ ἡ κλείς * 
καὶ τὰ περὲ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ᾿Απυκαλῷ» 
ews ᾿Ιωάννον. --- Euseb. H. E. tv. 26. 


182 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VI 


Testament or the new, merely on the authority of the Church of 
the fourth century ; inasmuch as the Church of the fourth century 
itself received them on the testimony of earlier ages, and the 
present Church receives it on the same. That testimony, even if 
Councils had been silent, would be of itself amply sufficient to 
prove that the new Testament Scriptures which we now possess 
are the genuine works of the Apostles and Evangelists. 





Section III.— ON THE REAL VALUE OF TRADITION, 
AND THE READING OF THE APOCRYPHA. 


I. eis Church of England then holds, in conformity with the 

Church of old, that Scripture is absolutely perfect in rela- 
tion to the end to which it tends, namely, the teaching us all things 
necessary to salvation. She denies the existence and rejects the 
authority of any parallel and equal tradition, of any doctrines 
necessary to salvation, handed down from generation to generation. 
But it is not true that the Church of England rejects the proper 
use of tradition, though she will not suffer it to be unduly exalted. 
She does not neglect the testimony of antiquity, and cut herself 
off from the Communion of the Saints of old. 

It has been already remarked, that, besides the tradition which 
the Church of Rome holds necessary to be received, which is a 
tradition equal and parallel with the Scriptures, there are also 
traditions which are subservient to Scripture, and calculated to 
throw light upon it. Such tradition, when kept in its right place, 
the Church of England has ever used and respected. 

Now this tradition is of two kinds, Hermeneutical Tradition, 
and Ecclesiastical Tradition. The former tends to explain and 
interpret the Scripture; the latter relates to discipline and cere- 
monial. With regard to the latter we find that the new Testa- 
ment has nowhere given express rules for rites, ordinances, and 
discipline; although we evidently discover that rites, ordinances, 
and discipline did exist, even when the new Testament was writ- 
ten. For our guidance therefore in these matters, which are use- 
ful for edification, but not essential for salvation, we gladly follow 
the example of the Churches nearest to the Apostles’ times, which 
we conceive to have been ordered by the Apostles themselves, 


Sec. TIL] FOR SALVATION. 183 


and to be the best witnesses of Apostolic order and Apostolic 
usages. 

Scripture is, at least, not full on these matters ; yet they are 
essential for the regulating and governing of a Church. We appeal 
therefore, to the purest and earliest models of antiquity. We 
cannot err in doing this, for in asserting the sufficiency of Scrip- 
ture, we assert it for the end to which it was designed. As we 
do not assert it as fit to teach us arts and sciences, so neither do 
we assert it as designed entirely to regulate Church discipline and 
ceremony. And where it does not profess to be a perfect guide, 
we derogate not from its authority in seeking other help. On 
matters of faith it is complete and full; but not in all things 
besides. 

With regard to Hermeneutical Tradition, we view matters thus. 
Those early Christians who had the personal instruction of the 
Apostles and their immediate companions, are more likely to have 
known the truth of Christian doctrine than those of after-ages, 
when heresies had become prevalent, when men had learned to 
wrest Scripture to destruction, and sects and parties had warped 
and biassed men’s minds, so that they could not see clearly the true 
sense of Holy Writ. ‘Truth is one, but error is multiform; and we 
know that in process of time new doctrines constantly sprang up 
in the Church, and by degrees gained footing and took root. We 
believe therefore, that if we can learn what was the constant 
teaching of the primitive Christians, we shall be most likely to find 
the true sense of Scripture preserved in that teaching: and wher- 
ever we can trace the first rise of a doctrine, and so stamp it with 
novelty, the proof of its novelty will be the proof of its falsehood ; 
for what could find no place among the earliest Churches of Christ 
can scarcely have come from the Apostles of Christ, or from a 
right interpretation of the Scriptures which they wrote. We do 
not, in thus judging, appeal to the authority of any individual 
father, not even if he be one of those who had seen the Apostles, 
and had received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. We 
know that they were fallible men, though we believe them to 
have been pious and wise men. Bnt we look to their writings for 
evidence as to what were the doctrines prevalent in the Church 
during the earliest ages; and we believe that, if we can discover 
what the doctrines of those earliest ages were, we have a most 
important clue to guide us in our course through the Scriptures 
themselves, because we judge that the Church thus early must 
almost certainly have, in the main, preserved the integrity of the 


184 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VI 


faith, and could not, whilst the voice of Apostolic men was in their 
ears, have fallen away into error and heresy. We know, that, in 
those days, men had many advantages over ourselves for the inter- 
preting of the new Testament. A knowledge of the language, the 
customs, the history of events, which illustrate the Scriptures, was 
of itself most important. Some of them must have had in their 
memories the personal teaching of the Apostles, for they were their 
immediate hearers and followers. Many of them lived within a 
comparatively short time from their departure. They took the 
utmost pains to preserve the purity of the Apostolic faith in the 
Church. The Church of their days had still the charismata, or 
miraculous gifts of the Spirit, visibly poured out upon it; and we 
may say that in every, or almost every manner, it was qualified, 
beyond any subsequent Church or age, to understand the Serip- 
tures, and to exhibit the purity and integrity of the Christian 
faith. 

The least, then, that can be said, is that the doctrine of the 
ancient Church is an useful check on any new interpretation of 
Scripture. Antiquity is a mark of truth, and novelty a mark 
of error in religion ; and this rule has ever been found valuable 
in important controversies. The Socinians have striven to show 
that Justin Martyr invented the doctrine of the Trinity, deriving it 
from the writings of Plato. Catholic Christians, on the contrary, 
have proved, that from the earliest times that doctrine was held in 
the Church, that therefore it is traceable to the Apostles, and not 
to Plato, that it springs from a true, not from an erroneous inter- 
pretation of Scripture. A like form has the controversy with the 
Church of Rome assumed. Many of her peculiar doctrines have 
been proved to owe their origin to comparatively recent times ; and 
so they have been shown to be unfit to stand the well-known test 
of Tertullian, that “ὁ what is first is true, what is later is adulterate.”’? 

Thus then tradition may be useful in the interpretation of 
Scripture, though not as adding to its authority. We well know 
that Scripture is perfect in itself, for the end for which it was 
designed. But we know also, that no aid for its interpretation 
should be neglected. 

That the Church of England takes this view of the right use 
of tradition, and of the value of the testimony of the primitive 
Church, will appear from the following documents. 

The Convocation of 1571, which passed the XX XIX. Articles in 


1 Hee enim ratio valet adversus omnes mum, id esse adulterum, quodcunque 
hareses, id esse verum, quodcunque pri- posterius.— Tertull. Adv. Praz. 2. 


Src. ΠΙ.1 FOR SALVATION. 185 


the form in which we have them now, passed also a code of 
Canons, in one of which is the following clause: ‘In the first place 
let preachers take heed that they deliver nothing from the pulpit, 
to be religiously held and believed by the people, but that which is 
agreeable to the old and new Testament, and such as the Catholic 
fathers and ancient bishops have collected therefrom.” ἢ 

In like manner, in the Preface to the Ordination Service we 
read, “It is evident to all men reading Holy Scripture, and an- 
cient authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been three 
orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and Dea- 
cons.” 

So Archbishop Cranmer, the great reformer of our Liturgy 
and compiler of our Articles, writes, “1 also grant that every 
exposition of the Scripture, whereinsoever the old, holy, and true 
Church did agree, is necessary to be believed. But our contro- 
versy here” (that is with the Romanists) “is, whether anything 
ought to be believed of necessity without the Scripture.’’? 

So his great coadjutor Bishop Ridley: “ In that the Church of 
Christ is in doubt, I use herein the wise counsel of Vincentius 
Lirinensis, whom I am sure you will allow; who, giving precepts 
how the Catholic Church may be in all schisms and heresies known, 
writeth in this manner: ‘ When,’ saith he, ‘one part is corrupted 
with heresies, then prefer the whole world before that one part; 
but if the greatest part be affected, then prefer antiquity.’ ” ® 

Dr. Guest, who was appointed at the accession of Elizabeth, to 
restore the reformed prayer-book, after it had been disused in the 
reign of Mary, and who reduced it to nearly its present form, writes 
thus: “50 that I may here well say with Tertullian, That is truth 
which is first; that is false which is after. That is truly first 
which is from the beginning. That is from the beginning which is 
from the Apostles. Tertullian, Cont. Prax. Cont. Mare.” + 

Bishop Jewel, in his Apology, which is all but an authoritative 
document, says: ‘‘ We are come as near as we possibly could to the 
Church of the Apostles, and of the old Catholic bishops and fathers ; 
and have directed according to their customs and ordinances, not 


1 Imprimis vero videbunt, ne quid un- kyn’s Oranmer’s Remains, rv. p. 229. See 
quam doceant pro concione, quod a pop- also ἢ. 126, and 111. p. 22, 
ulo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi  # Gloster Ridley’ ; Life of Ridley, p. 
quod consentaneum sit doctrine Veteris 613. 
aut Novi Testamenti, quodque ex illa “5 ‘Guest to Sir W. Cecil, concerning 
ipsa doctrina Catholici patres, et veteres the Service Book, &e. ; Stry pe’ s Annals, 1. 
episcopi collegerint. — Cardwell’s Syno- Appendix, No. x1v.; also Cardwell’s 
dalia, τ. p. 126. Hist. of Conferences, p. 52. 

3 Cranmer, On Unwritten Verities ; Jen- Leiter 


24 


186 


only our doctrine, but also the Sacraments, and the form of com- 
mon prayer.” ἢ 

These passages sufficiently prove that our reformers admitted 
and made use of the appeal to antiquity, in the interpretation of 
Scripture, and in the establishing of order and discipline. Their 
wisdom has been followed therein by all the great divines who have 
succeeded them. Joseph Mede, Hooker, Andrews, Hammond, 
Overal, Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Bull, Beveridge, Patrick, Water- 
land, Jebb, Van Mildert, Kaye, G. S. Faber, have been respec- 
tively cited as upholding the same principle, and acting upon it.? 

In the words of Bishop Kaye, “" On the subject.of religion, there 
appears to be a peculiar propriety in appealing to the opinions of 
past ages. In human science we find a regular advance from less 
to greater degrees of knowledge. ‘Truth is elicited by the labours 
of successive inquirers; each adds something to the stock of facts 
which have been previously accumulated ; and as new discoveries 
are continually made, the crude notions of those who first engaged 
in the pursuit are discarded for more matured and more enlarged 
views. The most recent opinions are those which are most likely 
to be correct. But in the case of a Divine revelation, this tenta- 
tive process can have no place. They to whom is committed the 
trust of communicating it to others, are thoroughly instructed in its 
nature and its objects, and possess a knowledge which no inquiries 
of subsequent ages can improve. What they deliver is the truth 
itself; which cannot be rendered more pure, though it may, and 
probably will, be adulterated in its transmission to succeeding gen- 
erations. The greater the distance from the fountain-head, the 
greater the chance that the stream will be polluted. On these 
considerations is founded the persuasion which has generally pre- 
vailed, that in order to ascertain what was the doctrine taught by 
the Apostles, and what is the true interpretation of their writings, 
we ought to have recourse to the authority of those who lived 
nearest to their times.” ὃ 


THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL~ 


1 Apoloy. Enchiridion Theolog. p. 184 ; 
where see the original more at length. 

2'The student may especially be re- 
ferred to Bp. Beveridge, Preface to his 
Codex Caunonum ; Patrick’s Discourse about 
Tradition, in the first volume of Gibson’s 
Preservative against Popery; Dr. Water- 
land, On the Importance of the Doctrine of 
the Trinity, ch. v11.; Bp. Jebb’s Pastoral 
Instructions — Chapter, On the Peculiar 
Character of the Church of England ; Bp. 
Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 229. See also Rev. 
G. 8. Faber’s Primitive Doctrine of Justi- 


Jication; and also Primitive Doctrine of 
Election. On Ecclesiastical Tradition, or 
tradition concerning rites and discipline, 
see Hooker, λ΄. δ. Bks. 11. and 111. ; Bp. 
Marsh’s Comparative View, ch. vu. 

8 Bp. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, ch. 1. p. 2. 
The bishop has satisfactorily shown, that 
the tradition appealed to by Tertullian in 
the second century was no other than the 
kind of tradition admitted by the Eng- 
lish Church. See Bp. Kaye's Tertullian 
p- 297, note. 


Src. III.) FOR SALVATION. 187 


“ We allow,” says Bishop Patrick, “that tradition gives us a 
considerable assistance in such points as are not in so many letters 
and syllables contained in the Scriptures, but may be gathered 
from thence by good and manifest reasoning. Or, in plainer 
words, perhaps, whatsoever tradition justifies any doctrine that 
may be proved by the Scriptures, though not found in express 
terms there, we acknowledge to be of great use, and readily re- 
ceive and follow it, as serving very much to establish us more 
firmly in that truth, when we see all Christians have adhered to it. 
This may be called a confirming tradition: of which we have an 
instance in Infant Baptism, which some ancient fathers call an 
Apostolical tradition.” Again: “ We look on this tradition as 
nothing else but the Scripture unfolded: not a new thing, but the 
Scripture explained and made more evident. And thus some part 
of the Nicene Creed may be called a tradition; as it hath expressly 
delivered unto us the sense of the Church of God concerning that 
great article of our faith, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 
begotten of His Father before all worlds, and of the same substance 
with the Father. But this tradition supposes the Scripture for its 
ground, and delivers nothing but what the fathers, assembled at 
Nice, believed to be contained there and fetched from thence.” ? 

So Dr. Waterland: ‘ We allow no doctrine as necessary which 
stands only on fathers, or on tradition, oral or written. We admit 
none for such but what is contained in Scripture, and proved by 
Scripture, rightly interpreted. And we know of no way more safe 
in necessaries, to preserve the right interpretation, than to take the 
ancients along with us. We think it a good method to secure our 
rule of faith against impostures of all kinds, whether of enthusi- 
asm, or false criticism, or conceited reason, or oral tradition, or the 
assuming dictates of an infallible chair. If we thus preserve the 
true sense of Scripture, and upon that sense build our faith, we 
then build upon Scripture only; for the sense of Scripture is 
Scripture.” 3 


1 Patrick, On Tradition, as above. 


vandi finis ---- Etsi omnis mea voluptas 
2 Waterland, On the Importance of the 


est et sola versari in lectione sacrz Scrip- 


Doctrine of the Trinity, ch. vi1. The note 
to this passage is as follows :— 

“So the great Casaubon, speaking 
both of himself and for the Church of 
England, and, at the same time, for Me- 
lanchthon and Calvin also; Opto cum 
Melanchthone et Ecclesia Anglicana, per 
canalem antiquitatis deduci ad nos dog- 
mata fidei, e fonte sacre Scripture deri- 
vata. — Alioguin quis futurus est inno- 


ture, nullam tamen inde me hausisse pro- 
priam sententiam, nullam habere, neque 
unquam σὺν Θεῷ εἰπεῖν, esse habiturum. 
Magni Calvini hee olim fuit mens, cum 
scriberet prefationem suam in commen- 
tarium Epistole ad Romanos ; non de- 
bere nos ἐν τοῖς Κυριωτάτοις, a consensu 
Ecclesiz recedere,” a. ἢ. 1611. Casaub. 
Epist. 744. Dan. ‘Heinsio, p- 484. Edit. 
tertia Rotterdami. 


188 

_ It is indeed most necessary that we do not suffer our respect 
for antiquity to trench upon our supreme regard for the authority 
of Scripture. To Scripture we look, as the only source of all 
Divine knowledge. But when we have fully established this prin- 
ciple, we need not fear to make use of every light with which 
God has furnished us, for the right understanding of Scripture ; 
whether it be a critical knowledge of ancient languages, or history, 
or antiquities, or the belief of the primitive Christians, and the 
doctrines which holy men of old deduced from those sacred writ- 
ings, which were to them, as to us, the only fountain of light and 
truth. 


THE SUFZICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Arr. VL 


II. The Article, having declared the sufficiency of Scripture, 
and set forth the Canon of Scripture, then speaks of those other 
books which had been always held in high respect, but were not 
canonical, in the following terms : — 

* The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for 
example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply 
them to establish any doctrine.” 1 

The meaning of these words is, that the Church of God, in all 
ages, has been used to read the Apocrypha, for example and in- 
struction, but not for doctrine. This is a simple statement of fact, 
_and if nothing more were said elsewhere, it would need no farther 
explanation. But, if we look to the Calendar of the Prayer-Book, 
which was drawn up by the compilers of the Articles, and re- 
ceives, like the Articles, the assent of all the clergy of the Church, 
we find that, during a certain portion of the year, in the week-day 
services, the first lesson is appointed to be read from the Apocry- 
pha. This is acting on the principle laid down in the Article; 
and this is one of those customs of the Church of England which 
has been most exposed to censure, from those who dissent from 
her, and from some even of her own children. 

There may certainly appear some danger in ordering that to be 
read, as a lesson of the Church, which is not Canonical Scripture, 


probably: “Sieut ergo Judith et Tobit 


1 'Απόκι Bi or ἀπόκρυφοι βίβλοι, so 
ee beet lon et Maccabworum libros legit quidem Ec- 


called either because their authors were 


unknown; or because not laid up, like 
the Canonical books, in the ark; or be- 
cause read in private only, not in public 
also ; though it appears from the xtvirth 
Canon of the Council of Carthage, that 
some apocryphal books were read pub- 
μον ΜΆ uicer, 8. v. ἀπόκρυφοι. ‘Tom. 1. 
nf The passage of Hierome alluded to is 


clesia, sed inter canonicas Scripturas non 
recipit, sit et hee duo volumina (h. e. li- 
bros Sapientie et Ecclesiastici) legat ad 
wdificationem plebis, non ad auctorita- 
tem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confir- 
mandam.”’—Hieronym. Jn Libros Salo- 
monis, Chromatio et Heliodoro. Tom. 1. p 
988. Ed. Ben. 


Src. IIL] 189 


lest it should be mistaken for Scripture ; and it is moreover urged 
against the custom, that the Apocrypha not only is not inspired, 
but also contains some idle legends, and some erroneous doctrines, 
and therefore ought not to be admitted to be read in the Church. 
It is even added, that the Church of Rome has derived some of 
her errors from, and supports some of her false teaching by, the 
authority of the Apocrypha. 

It may be well, therefore, to state the grounds on which it is 
probable that our reformers thought fit to retain the Apocryphal 
lessons, that we may see what is the weight of the objections urged 
against our Church on the ground of their use. ! 

First, it has been replied to the principal objections, that, if we 
would exclude all human compositions from the Church, we must 
exclude homilies, sermons, metrical psalms and hymns, —nay, 
prayers, whether written or extempore, except such as are taken 
out of Scripture itself, —that there is no danger that the Apoc- 
rypha should be mistaken for Scripture when it is expressly 
assigned a far lower place, both in the formularies and in the 
ordinary teaching of the Church,—that, if it be not free from 
faults, no more is any human composition, and that on this prin- 
ciple we must still rather exclude sermons, psalms, hymns, and 
even liturgies, — that it is not true that the Church of Rome has 
derived her errors from the Apocrypha, which does not support 
them, and by which she could not prove them; for she has derived 
them from misinterpreting Scripture, from oral tradition, and from 
her own assumed infallibility.1 

So much is said in answer to the objections. Farther, in 
favour of reading the Apocryphal books, their nature and. history 
are alleged. The origin of them has been already alluded to. 
They were written in the period of time which elapsed between 
the return from captivity and the birth of Christ. The historical 


FOR SALVATION. 


1 The following is the answer of the 
Bishops to the exception of the Puritans 
at the Savoy Conference against the 
reading of the Apocrypha: “As they 
would have no Saints’ days observed by 
the Church, so no Apocryphal chapter 
read in the Church; but upon such a 
reason as would exclude all sermons as 
well as Apocrypha; namely, because the 
Holy Scriptures contain in them all 
things necessary either in doctrine to be 
believed, or in duty to be practised. If 
so, why 80 many unnecessary sermons ? 
Why any more but reading of Scrip- 
tures? If, notwithstanding their suf- 
ficiency, sermons be necessary, there is 


no reason why the Apocryphal chapters 
should not be as useful, — most of them 
containing excellent discourses and rules 
of morality. It is heartily to be wished 
that all sermons were as good. If their 
fear be, that, by this means, those books 
may come to be of equal esteem with 
the Canon, they may be secured against 
that by the title which the Church hath 
put upon them, calling them Apocry- 
phal; and it is the Church’s testimony 
which teacheth us this difference, and to 
leave them out were to cross the prac- 
tice of the Church in former ages.” — 
eras Hist. of Conferences, ch. v11. p. 


190 


books of the Apocrypha, therefore, supply a most important link 
in the history of the Jewish people. Without them we should 
be ignorant of the fulfilment of many of the old Testament 
prophecies, especially those in the book of Daniel; and should 
know nothing of several customs and circumstances alluded to 
in the new Testament, and essential to its understanding. The 
other books are mostly pious reflections, written by devout men, 
who were waiting for the consolation of Israel. 

The Alexandrian Jews received them with the most profound 
respect. The fathers often appealed to them, and cited them; 
though it has been shown they mostly knew the difference between 
them and the writings of Moses and the Prophets. It appears 
that from very early times they were read in most Churches, at 
least in the West ; as in very many were also read the Epistles of 
Clement and Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas,!— not that 
they were esteemed Canonical, but as of high antiquity and value, 
and useful for instruction to the people. 

In Rufinus we find a distinction between books Apocryphal and 
books Ecclesiastical? Among the former he classed those which 
were wholly rejected ; among the latter those which were read in 
Churches. His division therefore is threefold: Canonical, which 
embraces all those which we now receive into the Canon ; Apocry- 
phal, ὁ. ὁ. those which were altogether rejected ; and Ecclesiastical, 
among which he reckons Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 
Maccabees, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the like. This distine- 
tion occurs elsewhere, though some of the fathers make only a 
twofold division, into Canonical and Apocryphal.? Now the 
Ecclesiastical books are what we at this time call the Apocrypha ; 
and forming part both of the Latin and Greek versions of the old 


THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Anrr. VL 


1 Dionysius, a bishop of Corinth in the 
second century, in a letter to the Church 
of Rome (ap. Euseb. 1. 15. 111. 16) says, 
“they read on the Lord’s day Clement’s 
Epistle to them in their assemblies ;” 
and Eusebius (/d. rv. 23) declares it to 
have been “universally received, and 
read in most churches,” both in his and 
former times. ‘The same he says of the 
Shepherd of Hermas (/d. 111. 8), that 
“it was read in many churches ;”” which 
is confirmed by Athanasius (1. epi Pas- 


chal, xxx1x.), and Rufinus. ( it. in 
Symb. Apost. § 86), both κοντα μι this 
and other books. — Jones, On the Canon, 
Part τ. ch, x. 


2“ Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii 
libri sunt qui non Canonici, sed Eeclesi- 
astici a majoribus appellati sunt; ut est 


Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia 
que dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud 
Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ec- 
clesiasticus appellatur, quo vocabulo non 
auctor libelli sed Scriptura qualitas cog- 
nominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est libel- 
lus Tobie et Judith et Maccabeorum 
libri. In novo vero Testamento libellus, 
qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermatis, qui 
appellatur due vie, vel judicium Petri ; 
que omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis vol- 
uerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctori- 
tatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Cete- 
ras vero Scripturas Apocryphas nomina- 
runt, quas in Ecclesiis ow goleeeqat: 
— Rufin. Xue Symb. Fe Be δὲν 

8B. gq. Cyril. Ca ena ge Oo 
he calls 4 Apocryphal which are not 
Canonical 


Sec. 1Π.1 FOR SALVATION. 191 


Testament, they continued to be read in most Churches, from the 
earliest ages to the time of the Reformation. 

It was not peculiar to the English reformers to speak with 
respect of these books. The foreign reformers use similar lan- 
guage, citing them as a kind of secondary authority ; and especially 
the Swiss and Belgic Confessions, which represent the opinions of 
the extreme Calvinist section of the Reformation, speak in terms 
of honour concerning them, the latter allowing them to be read in 
Churches.1. It may be added, that the Eastern Churches, which 
agree with us in the Canon, yet retain the Apocryphal books in 
their Bibles, and use them as we do. 

One more argument ought not to be wholly omitted. The new 
Testament writers, even our Lord himself, appear often to cite 
from the Septuagint. We must not consider this as giving full 
authority to all the books of the Septuagint. Such authority we 
have already shown to belong only to the books of the Hebrew 
Canon. But it should appear, that such citations from the Sep- 
tuagint would naturally commend to the Church the use of that 
volume as the Greek version of the Scriptures. Now that Greek 
version contains all the Apocryphal books. If, then, they were so 
mischievous, or so to be rejected, as some argue, it is scarcely to 
be accounted for, that neither our Lord nor any of His Apostles 
give any warning against them, whilst they quote, as of sacred 
authority, other portions of the volume which contains them. 

These views, in the general, appear to have influenced our 
reformers to retain the Apocryphal books. They have removed 
them from the Sunday services, and forbidden them to be quoted 
as authority in matters of faith; but esteeming them as next in 
value to the sacred Scriptures, from the important information 
they contain, and from the respect which they have received from 
the earliest ages, they were unwilling to remove them from the 
place which they had so long occupied. The reformers were evi- 
dently not insensible to the evil of putting anything else on the 
same footing as the Canonical writings. But this danger, they 
justly esteemed, would be very small in the reformed Church. 
And experience has shown, that in this they were right in their 


1 Sylloge Confessionum. Confess. Hel- 


eatenus etiam sumere documenta, qua- 
vet. Art. 1. p. 17. Confess. Belgic. Art. 


tenus cum libris Canonicis consonant; 


vi. p. 828. The latter runs thus: Dif- 
ferentiam porro constituimus inter libros 
istos sacros et eos quos Apocryphos vo- 
cant: utpote quod Apocryphi legi qui- 
dem in Ecclesia possint, et fas sit ex illis 


at nequaquam ea est ipsorum auctoritas 
et firmitas, ut ex illorum testimonio ali- 
quod dogma de fide et religione Chris- 
tiana certo constitui possit, &. 


192 


judgment, for extreme respect for the Apocrypha has been a 
feeling in this country almost unknown. In this question, there- 
fore, they appear to have adhered to the maxim which often 
guided them in matters of doubt, a maxim quoted with so much 
approbation by the famous Apologist of the English Church, and 
which originated in the fathers of the Council of Nice: ἔθη ἀρχαῖα 
κρατείτω ---- Let ancient customs prevail. 


THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES. [Anrt. VL 


1“Cur id a nobis hodie audiri non 
potest, quod olim in Concilio Niceno, a 
tot Episcopis et Catholicis Patribus, nullo 
refragante, pronunciatum est, ἔϑη ἀρχαῖα 
τς onlalge γτ: Apolog. Enchiridion 

eologicum, p. 158. 

On the question of the reading of the 
Apocrypha in churches, see Hooker, Z. 
P. y. 20. Concerning the ancient custom 
of reading Apocryphal books, see also 
Bingham, Eccles. Ant. Bk. x1y. ch. 111. 
§§ 14, 15, 16. 

The following are the words of a pious 


and judicious writer, closely attached to 
a school in the English Church not par- 
ticularly inclined to pay respect to the 
Apocrypha: “Man is a creature of ex- 
tremes. The middle path is generally 
the wise path; but there are few wise 
enough to find it. Because Papists have 
made too much of some things, Protes- 
tants have made too little of them. . . . 
The Papist puts the Apocrypha into his 
Canon ; the Protestant will scarcely re- 

ard it as an ancient record,” &c.— 
Cecil ’s Remains, p. 364. London, 1830. 


[The commission to write the Scriptures is contained in the promises quoted on page 
167, and the divine authority of the New Testament rests on the same promises. But 
these do not seem to have been made exclusively to the original Apostles, nor to have 
been fulfilled, as far as writing Holy Scripture is concerned, in all of them. For not 
all of them contributed to the New Testament, and much of what it contains was 
written neither by them nor under their guidance, as the Epistles of St. Paul. We 
are therefore obliged to add that the testimony upon which we receive certain books as 
inspired, is that of the early Church, which by a divinely-guided discrimination ac- 
cepted what was, and rejected what was not, written by virtue and in fulfillment of 
those promises; and that discrimination was based upon evidence part of which is 
still accessible and can be appreciated by us. — H. A. Y.— J. W.] 


ARTICLE VII. 


a oe 


Of the Old Testament. 


Tue old Testament is not contrary to 
the new; for both in the old and new 
Testament everlasting life is offered to 
mankind by Christ, who is the only Me- 
diator between God and man, being both 
God and man. Wherefore they are not 
to be heard, which feign that the old 
fathers did look only for transitory prom- 
ises. Although the Law given from 
God by Moses, as touching ceremonies 
‘and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor 
the Civil precepts thereof ought of ne- 
cessity to be received in any common- 


De Veteri Testamento. 


TESTAMENTUM Vetus novo contrarium 
non est, quandoquidem tam in veteri 
quam in novo, per Christum, qui unicus 
est Mediator Dei et hominum, Deus et 
homo, zterna vita humano generiest pro- 
posita. Quare male sentiunt, qui vete- _ 
res tantum in promissiones temporarias © 
sperasse confingunt. Quanquam Lex a 
Deo data per Mosen (quoad ceremonias 
et ritus) Christianos non astringat, ne- 
que Civilia ejus precepta in aliqua repub- 
lica necessario recipi debeant, nihilomi- 
nus tamen ab obedientia mandatorum 


wealth; yet notwithstanding, no Chris- 
tian man whatsoever is free from the 
obedience of the Commandments which 
are called moral. 


(qu Moralia vocantur) nullus quantum- 
vis Christianus est solutus. 





Sxction I.— HISTORY. 


HE Article, as it now stands, is compounded of two of the 
Articles of 1552, namely, the sixth and the nineteenth. The 
sixth ran thus : — 

“The old Testament is not to be put away, as though it were 
contrary to the new, but to be kept still; for both in the old and 
new Testaments everlasting life is offered to mankind only: by 
Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man. Where- 
fore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did 
look only for transitory promises.” 

The nineteenth was as follows : — 

«ΤῊ Law, which was given of God by Moses, although it bind 
not Christian men, as concerning the ceremonies and rites of the 
same, neither is it required that the civil precepts and orders of it 
should be received in any commonweal: yet no man (be he never 
so perfect a Christian) is exempt and loose from the obedience of 
those commandments which are called moral; wherefore they are 
not to be hearkened unto, who affirm that Holy Scripture is given 
only to the weak, and do boast themselves continually of the 
Spirit, of whom (they say) they have learned such things as they 

25 ; 


ago ‘ r- Ὑ alas, " ——— a Ν 


194 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Arr. VIL 


teach, although the same be most evidently repugnant to the Holy 
Scripture.” 


I. We may first consider, what persons have denied the doc- 
trine contained in the original sixth Article, which forms the first 
part of our present Article; and then, who have been opposed to 
the statements of the original nineteenth Article, of which the 
substance is contained in the latter part of our present seventh 
Article. 

First then, some early heretics held, that the old Testament 
was altogether contrary to the new. 

The Gnostic sects, who believed in the sinliginiby of matter, 
would not allow that the Creator of the world could be the 
Supreme God. Marcion especially appears to have distinctly 
taught, that the old Testament was contrary to the new, the 
former being the work of the Demiurge or Creator, the latter of 
the Supreme and invisible God. He is said to have composed a 
work called Antitheses, because in it he set, as it were, in opposi- 
tion to each other, passages from the old and new Testaments, 
intending his readers to infer from the apparent disagreement 
between them, that the Law and the Gospel did not proceed from 
the same author. Tertullian wrote a work against Marcion, in 
the fourth book of which he exposes the inconsistency of this 
attempt.t Similar opinions prevailed, more or less, among the 
Valentinians and other Gnostic sects; all of whom attributed the 
creation to inferior beings, and consequently rejected the old 
Testament. e 

The Manichees in like manner, who believed in two principles 
eternally opposed to each other, as they had views similar to. the 
Gnostics concerning the evil of matter, so they resembled them in 
their disrespect to the old Testament Scriptures.?. And in this 
they were very probably followed by those medieval sects of here- 
tics, the Bulgarians, Cathari, and others, who appear to have been 
infected with Manichean heresy. 

It is most probable, however, that the framers of this Article, 
both in the earlier and in the latter part of it, had in view some of 
the fanatical sects of the period of the Reformation, especially the 
Antinomians, who denied the necessity of obedience to the Law 

1 Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. iv. Bp. = Tom. vit. p. 16. See also Socrat. ἢ. 


Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 499, &e. E.¢. 22; ipiohan. Heres. 66, ο. 48; Lard- 
3 Deum, qui Legem r Moysen dedit, ner, Hist. + ‘anichees, 111. ch. uxt. 
et in Hebrais prophetis locutus est, non . ® See Mosheim, Eee. Hist. Cent. x1. 


esse verum Deum, sed unum ex princip-. pt. 11. ch. v. δῇ ὃ, 8; Cent. x11. pt. 11 
ibus tenebrarum. — August. De Heres. ch. v. § 4. 


Sec. 1. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 195 


of God, and the Anabaptists, who referred all things to an internal 
illumination ; and both of whom were likely to have denied the 
value and authority of the old Testament. 

The opinion that the fathers looked only for transitory prom- 
ises, has been held, not only by heretics and fanatics, but, more 
or less, by some, in the main, orthodox Christians. Bishop War- 
burton, in his famous work, The Divine Legation of Moses, has 
endeavoured to prove that Moses studiously concealed from the 
Hebrews all knowledge of a future state; and this forms one of 
the arguments by which he strives to prove the inspiration and 
Divine authority of the Books of Moses. Though he allows that 
the later Jews, during and after the Captivity, had a gradually 
increasing knowledge of the immortality of the soul, yet as re- 
gards the earlier times of the Jewish commonwealth, he appears 
to have denied any such knowledge, even to the patriarchs and 
prophets.! (ἢ 


II. By looking at the wording of the original nineteenth 
Article, it will appear plainly that the latter part of our present 
Article is chiefly directed against fanatics, who affirm ‘that Holy 
Scripture is given only to the weak, and do boast themselves con- 
tinually of the Spirit, of whom, they say, that they have learned 
such things as they teach.” 

This claim to inward illumination, and consequent neglect. of 
the teaching of Scripture, has constantly characterized fanatical 
sects in all ages. Those against whom the words of the Article 
were directed are generally supposed to be the Antinomians and 
the Anabaptists, who sprang up soon after the rise of the Ref- 
ormation in Germany. The Antinomians were the followers of 
Agricola, who carried the doctrine of Justification by faith to the 
length of rejecting the necessity of moral obedience altogether.? 
The Anabaptists were a constant source of annoyance to the 
Lutheran reformers. As their name implies, they rejected Infant 
Baptism, and rebaptized adults. But with this they combined a 
variety of noxious and fanatic doctrines, which rendered them 
dangerous both to Church and State. Claiming a high degree 
of internal illumination, they appear to have sanctioned and com- 
mitted a number of excesses and crimes, under pretence of special 
direction and command of God.® | 


1 See Warburton’s Divine Legation, ® See a history of them, Mosheim, 
Book v. §§ 5, 6. Cent. xvi. Sect. m1. pt. 11. ch. 111. 
2 Mosheim, Cent. xvi. Sect. 111. pt. Mosheim also, in the preceding chapter, 
fx. ch. 1. ὃ 26. gives an account of a sect of Libertines 


196 


It seems that this Article also incidentally alludes to some per- 
sons, who would have retained, not only the moral, but the cere- 
monial part of the Mosaic Law. This of course must have been 
true of all the early Judaizing Christian teachers. In the history 
given of the doctrine of the first Article, we have seen that some 
part of the Eastern Church was materially corrupted with these 
Judaizing tendencies. The observance of the Jewish Sabbath, 
or Saturday, the quartodeciman mode of calculating Easter, and 
similar observances, have been already mentioned as examples of 
this kind. 

As regards the belief that Christian commonwealths ought to 
be regulated after the model of the Jewish. polity and according 
to the civil precepts of the old Testament, it seems likely that 
the Anabaptists of Munster, who seized on that city and set up 
a religious commonwealth among themselves, endeavoured to con- 
form their regulations in great measure to the laws of the Jewish 
economy.! 

In later times, in Great Britain, the Puritans, at the period of 
the Great Rebellion, were constantly using the language of the 
old Testament, as authority for their conduct in civil affairs, and 
as a guide for the administration of the Commonwealth. 

It is highly probable that, at the period of the Reformation, 
the whole question concerning the agreement of the old with the 
new Testament was a good deal debated. The prominent manner 
in which the subject of Justification was then brought forward 
naturally suggested topics of this kind. When men were told, in 
the strongest terms, that there was not, and could not be, any hope 
of salvation to them but by faith in Christ; and that this was 
altogether independent of any merits of their own, and could not 
be obtained by works of the Law; it obviously and naturally 
occurred to them to inquire, How then were the fathers under the 
old Testament saved? They had never heard of Christ, and could 
not be saved by faith in Him. They had only a law of works for 
their guidance. Can then the old Testament be contrary to the 
new ? 


OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Arr. VIL. 


calling themselves Spiritual Brothers 


the restraints of morality. All ages 
‘and Sisters, who sprang up among the 


have been more or less infected by such 


Calvinists in Flanders, and against 
whom Calvin wrote. They held, that 
religion consisted in the union of the 
soul with God, and that such as had at- 
tained to such a union were free from 


fanatics. They naturally flourished in a 
time of such religious excitement as the 
Reformation. 

1 See Mosheim, as above. 


Sec. IL] ᾿ OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 197 


Secrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


ΙΕ endeavouring to show the correspondence of this Article of 

our Church with the truth of Scripture, it will be desirable to 
consider the subjects of it in the order already adopted in speak- 
ing of their history. 


I. First, we may consider the statement, that eternal life is 
offered to mankind, in the old as well as in the new Testament, 
through Jesus Christ; and that the fathers looked for more than 
transitory promises. 

II. Secondly, we may treat of the questions concerning the 
abrogation of the civil and ceremonial, and concerning the perma- 
nency of the moral Law. 


I. Now we shall find it more convenient to treat the first 
division of our subject in the following order: — 

1. To consider the nature of the Law of Moses, and the rea- 
son why eternal life is not more clearly set forth as one of its 
promises. 

2. To speak of the promises, in the old Testament, of a Me- 
diator and Redeemer. 

3. To show, that under the old Covenant there was a hope 
among the pious of a future state and life eternal. 

1. The character of the Law of Moses was peculiar to itself. 
God chose the people of Israel to be His own kingdom on earth. 
There were reasons, some known only to God, others revealed to 
us, why for two thousand years it pleased Him to preserve His 
truth amid surrounding idolatry, by committing it entirely to one 
chosen race. That people He constituted His own subjects, and 
ruled over them, as their Sovereign and Lawgiver. The Jew- 
ish commonwealth, therefore, was neither a Monarchy under the 
Kings, nor an Aristocracy under the Judges, but it was always 
a Theocracy. The people had properly no king but God. Moses 
was His vicegerent; so was Joshua; and after them the Judges 
exercised, from time to time, more or less of the same delegated 
authority. In the time of Samuel, the people, in a spirit of 
unbelief, asked for the presence of a visible king, and thereby 
greatly sinned against God, as dissatisfied with His invisible 
empire, and rebelling against the government which He had es- 
tablished over them. He however consented to grant them a 


a re 


198 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Arr. VIL 


temporal ruler, an earthly king. Yet the king so appointed did 
not rule in his own name, but as the viceroy and lieutenant of the 
Lorp of Hosts, the God of the armies, the King of the kingdom 
of Israel. 

’ All the laws then were ministered in His name. All the 
sanction of those laws had reference to Him, as Ruler and Law- 
giver. The Tabernacle, and afterwards the Temple, were not 
simply, places of worship; they were rather the Royal. Palace, as 
Jerusalem was the city of the Great King. In the Temple His 
throne was the mercy-seat, and between the attendant Cherubim 
He was present in the cloud of glory, to be approached with the 
homage of incense and prayer, and to be consulted as to His 
pleasure by His chief minister, the High Priest, with the Urim 
and Thummim. 

Accordingly, the Law given by Moses was the constitution and 
statute-book of the Theocratic commonwealth. It was indeed a 
guide for the life and manners of the people; but it was their 
guide, especially as they were subjects of the temporal govern- 
ment of the Lord. The Almighty is, in His own nature and His 
own will, unchangeable; and therefore the laws which regulate 
morality must ever be the same. Hence, when for a time He 
assumed the government of a temporal kingdom, murder, theft, 
adultery, and other crimes against justice, mercy, truth, and 
purity, were forbidden and punished, as a thing of course. But, 
over and above this, when God became the King of the nation, 
certain sins against Him became, not only moral, but civil offences. 
Idolatry was high treason, and direct rebellion. It was not, there- 
fore, as in general, left to the judgment of the hereafter, but was 
proceeded against at once, as a state crime of the highest magni- 
tude, and punished immediately with temporal death. 

The like may be said concerning the destruction of God’s 
enemies, the Amorites, the Amalekites, the Philistines, and others. 
They were the foes of the King of Israel, and were to be extermi- 
nated accordingly. 

So again, much of the ceremonial of the Law constituted the 
state ceremonial of the Invisible King. The earthly sovereign, 
‘the priests and the Levites, were His court and His ministers. 
Custom and tribute were paid to Him, as they would have been 
naturally paid to the rulers in all the kingdoms of the world. 

- Now such being the case, we may understand at once why all 
the sanctions of the Law are temporal, and not eternal. In many 
instances, indeed, the punishments denounced were to be executed 


Sxe. 11 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 199 


by the civil magistrate. There were rules laid down as to the 
administration of justice by the inferior officers in the common- 
wealth of Israel. But in other cases the vengeance denounced is 
to be executed, not by the inferior magistrate, but by the supreme 
Head, the King of Israel Himself. Yet still the principle is the 
same. Whether the King Himself is to be the judge, or the 
priest, or the magistrate, the reason for the judgment is the same. 
And accordingly God, who was their King, interfered, not as in 
other nations by an ordinary Providence, but signally and mani- 
festly, by direct, obvious, miraculous interposition. The obedient 
subject was rewarded by his bountiful Sovereign with long life and 
peace and prosperity ; the disobedient was smitten with sickness, 
afflicted with poverty, or struck down by death. 

If at any time the nation became generally disobedient, Proph- 
ets were sent to it, who were messengers from the King, to exhort 
His subjects to preserve their allegiance and return to their duty. 
Even they, like the Law itself, spoke to the people, for the most 
part, as subjects of the temporal kingdom of the Lorp, and admon- 
ished them of the danger of not submitting themselves to their 
lawful Sovereign. 

Whether then we look to the Law or to the Prophets, we can 
see good reason, why neither eternal life nor eternal death should 
be the sanction set forth, and the motives pressed upon the people. 
The Jewish dispensation was in every way extraordinary. We 
often mistake its nature, by viewing it as if it were the first full 
declaration of God’s will to man ; whereas the patriarchal religion 
had already existed for full two thousand years before it, and the 
Law was “added” (προσετέϑη, Gal. iii. 19) to serve only for a 
time, and for a peculiar purpose. Its object, at least its direct and 
apparent object, was, not to set forth the way of eternal life, but 
to be the statute-law of the Theocracy, and to subserve the pur- 
poses of a carnal and preparatory dispensation, wherein the knowl- 
edge of God, and the hopes of a Messiah, were preserved amid the 
darkness of surrounding heathenism, till the day dawned, and the 
day-star arose. 

The Jews, indeed, who were contemporary with Christ and His 
Apostles, vainly supposed that the Law of Moses had in it a life- 
giving power. They stumbled at that stumbling-stone, for they 
sought eternal salvation, “ not by faith in Christ, but as it were by 
the works of the Law” (Rom. ix. 32). Whereas, the Law was 
not given for that purpose, but with an object remarkably different 
from that. “If, indeed, a law had been given, which was capable — 


200 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Arr. VI. 


of giving life, then would righteousness (or justification) have 
been by the Law.”! But law, though essential for the regulation 
of manners, is, of its own nature, incapable of giving eternal salva- 
tion; for he who obeys its ordinances can, at most, but deserve to 
escape from its penalties. And this is still more emphatically true 
of men polluted by sin and compassed by infirmity. For law 
provides no propitiation, and offers no spiritual aid. There must 
therefore have been something more than law to save men from 
eternal ruin; and the Jew, by imagining that the Law could do 
this, failed altogether of the righteousness of faith. 

Even the sacrifices under the Law had but a temporal efficacy. 
They served “for a carnal purifying” (πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρό- 
ara, Heb. ix. 13). They satisfied for offences against the tem- 
poral Majesty of the Great King, and screened from the temporal 
punishment due to all transgressions of the Law, which He had 
enacted. But there was no profession, no promise whatever, that 
they should satisfy for the sin of the soul. Indeed, for the heavier 
offences there was no propitiation set forth at all; whether these 
offences were against the King, or against his subjects. For mur- 
der and adultery, for idolatry and blasphemy, there was nothing 
left ‘* but a certain fearful looking for of judgment.”’ ‘The blood 
of bulls and of goats could never take away sin;” “could never 
make the worshipper perfect as pertaining to the conscience.” 

2. But beyond all this, there was still another purpose for 
which the Mosaic economy was designed. ‘The Law was a 
school-master to bring us to Christ.”” It was a dispensation pro- 
fessedly preparatory, and imperfect. It was, therefore, so con- 
structed by Infinite Wisdom that there should be an inward spirit 
vastly dissimilar from the outward letter of the Law. Accord- 
ingly, the whole dispensation, as it was preparatory, so it was 
typical. The kingdom of Christ was the great antitype of the old 
Theocracy. The Church is a theocracy now, as much as Israel 
-was then. And so all the ordinances of the temporal kingdom 
were types and images of the blessings of the spiritual kingdom. 
To this end, as well as to their tmmediate object, served the priests 
and the temple, the altar and the sacrifices, the tribute and the 
incense, and all the service of the sanctuary. The letter then of 
the Law could never offer salvation: but the spirit did. Nay, the 
letter of the Law was necessarily condemnatory, as it gave more 
light and brought more obligations ; but neither satisfied for trans- 


1 Gal. iii. 21. Ei γὰρ ἐδόϑη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἂν ἐκ νόμου ἣν 
ἡ δικαιοσύνη. 


SEc. IL] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 201 


gressions, nor gave inward sanctification. And so it is written, 
«ς The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life’’ (2 Cor. iii. 6). The 
letter brought no promise of immortality, but left men under con- 
demnation ; but the spiritual meaning of the Law led men to 
Christ, and so gave them life. 

It will not be necessary to go through the promises of the old 
Testament and the types of the Law, to show that there was a 
promise of a mediator, and of redemption from the curse which 
Adam had brought upon us. The promise to Adam of the seed 
of the woman, —the promise to Abraham that in his seed all the 
nations of the earth should be blessed, — the promise to David 
concerning his son, who should sit upon his throne, —the types of 
the passover, the scape-goat, the sacrifices on the day of atone- 
ment, the consecration of the high priest, the prophecies of David, 
of Isaiah, of Daniel, of Zechariah, of Malachi,—all readily occur 
to us as containing predictions, or exhibiting figures, which set 
forth to the enlightened understanding the hope of future deliver- 
ance, and of a Redeemer, who should turn away iniquity. 

It is said most truly, that all this was involved in much obscu- 
rity ; and it can never be denied, that the Jew had a much less 
clear understanding, a much more partial revelation of “the truth 
as it is in Jesus,” than the least instructed member of the Chris- 
tian Church. Nay, ‘the least in the kingdom of Heaven,” ὁ. 6. 
in the Gospel dispensation, “is greater” in knowledge “than he 
who was greatest”’ before the coming of Christ. But it should 
not be forgotten that during the patriarchal ages God had revealed 
Himself to Adam and Enoch, to Noah and Abraham, and perhaps 
to many besides. We are not to suppose that the light of such 
primeval revelation, which guided men for more than twenty cen- 
turies, was of a sudden quenched in utter darkness. The tradi- 
tionary knowledge concerning a promised Mediator was no doubt 
carefully cherished, and served to enlighten much which in the 
Law, and even in the Prophets, might have been otherwise unin- 
telligible. And hence, the Mediator, though but faintly shadowed 
out, was yet firmly believed in. We have our Lord’s assurance, 
that ‘‘ Abraham rejoiced to see His day ; he saw it and was glad” 
(John vii. 56). We have St. Paul’s assurance, that the same 
Abraham, having received the promise of the Redeemer, believed 
in it, and was justified by faith. And we may well suppose that 
the faith which guided Abraham guided others, both before pnd 
after him. 


1 Rom. iv. 1-20. Gal. iii. 6-9, 14-19. 
26 


202 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Arr. VIL 


At first indeed, and whilst patriarchal tradition yet survived, 
the intimations of a Mediator in the ancient Scriptures are less 
distinct and less intelligible. But among the later prophets, when 
that early tradition may have had less weight, and when the day 
of Christ was more nearly approaching, the promises may be read 
more plainly, and the Gospel-history be almost deciphered in the 
sacred emblems of prophecy. 

8. Are we then to suppose, notwithstanding this, that the 
fathers looked only for transitory promises ? 

It is a truth, which, I think, cannot be denied, that Moses does 
not bring prominently forward the doctrine of a future state. 
That was a subject which did not fall in with his purpose. His 
mission was to organize the Jewish Commonwealth, and embody in 
writing the statute-law of the Theocracy. That Theocracy, as 
has been said, was a temporal kingdom, though God was its King. 
Hence naturally he does not bring forward the doctrine of a future 
life.’ In addition to the writing of the laws of Israel, Moses gives 
also a brief, a very brief, sketch of the history of the nation, and 
of its more illustrious ancestors. It is probable enough that no 
very frequent allusion to a future existence might occur in this his- 
tory; and it is only in the historical, not at all in the legislative 
writings, that we can expect to meet with it. It has been already 
explained, that even the prophets, who succeeded Moses, acted 
much as messengers from the Sovereign of Israel to His rebellious 
subjects, and hence naturally spoke much concerning obedience to 
His Law and the sanctions of that Law, which we know were 
temporal. Yet in many of the prophets, clear notices, not only of 
a Mediator and a hereafter, but perhaps also of a Resurrection, are 
to be met with. Even Bishop Warburton, though strongly main- 
taining that the earlier Jews had no knowledge of a life to come, 
yet admits that in later times they became fully acquainted with 
the truth of it. 

The principal passages in the books of Moses which seem to 
prove that the patriarchs believed in an eternity, and that a knowl- 
edge of it was general in the days of Moses himself, are as 
follows : — 

(1) The account of the translation of Enoch, Gen. vy. 24. 
This account, indeed, is brief and obscure. We know, however, 
from other sources what it means, and its obscurity rather seems to 


1 Bp. Warburton asserts that he studi- and therefore does not appear in it. It 
ously conceals it. This requires more does not follow that it was purposely 
proof than the Bishop has given, Eter- concealed. 
nal life was not a sanction of the Law 


Seo. IL] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 203 


argue that it was, as is most likely, a fact generally known and 
well understood, and so not needing to be longer dwelt upon. But 
its obscurity is a little magnified; for we clearly enough learn from 
the passage, that, whereas in general long life was a promised 
blessing, yet in the case of Enoch a still greater blessing was con- 
ferred. For, whereas all other persons in the same chapter are 
spoken of as living long and then dying ; Enoch’s is said to have 
been comparatively a short life ; and then it is said, that, because 
of his piety, “God took him.” “Enoch walked with God; and 
he was not, for God took him.’ It is hard to know what other 
sense could be attached to the passage, except that given it by St. 
Paul: ‘Enoch was translated that he should not see death” 
(Heb. xi. 5). Now people who knew of the translation of Enoch, 
must have known something of that state of bliss to which he was 
removed. 

(2) Accordingly, Jacob on his death-bed utters an ejaculation 

utterly unconnected with the immediate context: “1 have waited 
for thy salvation, O Lord” (Gen. xlix. 18). What salvation 
Jacob could have waited for, who in this very chapter looks for- 
ward to far future fortunes for his children, before ‘the Shiloh 
should come, and to Him should be the gathering of the people,” 
except it were the salvation of his own soul, which he was just 
about to breathe forth, has never been clearly explained. 
_ (8) Balaam was so well acquainted with the truth (though so 
little obedient to it) as “Το wish to die the death of the righteous, 
and that his last end should be like his” (Num. xxiii. 10). Now, 
the promise of the Law was to the life of the righteous; the prom- 
ises of temporal blessing must all affect life, rather than death. It 
is natural for a believer in a blessed immortality to wish for such a 
death, and such a last end as awaits the just. But from a person 
who believes all God’s promises to be made to this life, and. looks 
forward to no life beyond, such an exclamation seems hardly in- 
telligible. 

(4) There is a saying of Moses himself which seems probably 
to imply the same thing. Just before his death he says of Israel, 
‘Oh that they were wise, that they understood this, that they 
would consider their latter end.” It is undoubtedly not certain 
that ΓΝ, “latter end,” here, means death. . Perhaps it should 
be said, it probably does not mean death: but it means either 
Suturity, or final condition. And, though we may allow that the 
force of the passage is not unquestionable, its most natural inter- 
pretation would be, that it was a wish that the people of Israel 


204 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


were thoughtful of that time when worldly objects of interest 
should pass away, and their end draw nigh, when wisdom and piety 
only should profit them. 

We come next to the famous passage in the Book of Job. As 
the words stand in our Authorized Version, they prove Job’s be- 
lief, not only in a future life, but in a resurrection of the body: 
“Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were printed 
in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in 
the rock for ever! For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and 
that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though 
after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see 
God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and 
not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” (Job xix. 
23-27.) 

There are, without doubt, difficulties in this translation. The 
passage is in many points obscure, though not more so than the 
book of Job in general. The more literal rendering of the last 
three verses is, perhaps, as follows : — 

* For I, even I, know that my Redeemer liveth, and hereafter 
shall stand above the dust. And though, after my skin, this 
(body) be destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God: whom I 
shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and no stranger ; 
my reins are consumed within me.” 

On the whole, whatever rendering is given to it, it is hardly 
possible that the passage should not appear to prove a belief in a 
future existence. The words “from my flesh” indeed may be 
interpreted differently, according to the different senses attached to 
the preposition ; and whereas our translators have rendered it “ in 
my flesh,”’ some eminent scholars have maintained that we should 


[Arr. VIL 


common in the other books of the Bible, 
and for the explanation of which we must 
look to the Syriac and Arabic languages. 
But the style is very little like the style 
of the later books, which contain a cer- 
tain number of Chaldaisms and even 


1 The date and authorship of the Book 
of Job is a question in some degree af- 
fecting the question in the text. Most 
scholars consider the book as one of the 
earliest in the Bible; and many have be- 
lieved that it was written by Moses. Bp. 


Warburton argues, that it was not writ- 
ten till the captivity, or the return from 
captivity ; and that it is a dramatic com- 
position rather than a real history (Di- 
vine Legation, Bk. v1. Sect. 11.) The ques- 
tion is not to be settled with a few words. 
I can only say that it appears to me to 
bear the marks of great antiquity. It is 
true that it is not such pure Hebrew 
as some parts of the old Testament; or 
rather that it contains a great many He- 
brew words and phrases which are not 


some Chaldee; such as Daniel, Ezra, 
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and some of 
the Psalms. The Aramaisms of Job are 
very unlike these; and so is the whole 
style and character of the Hebrew. It is 
indeed exactly what might be expected 
from a very ancient writer, who wrote in 
Hebrew an account of dialogues a 
nally held in an ancient dialect of Arabic. 
Whether or not Moses was that writer ig 
another question. It seems very doubt- 
ful, if not highly improbable. 


OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 205 


render it ‘ without my flesh.’’? Yet the only difference, which such 
a different interpretation might cause, would be, that, according to 
the first, Job hoped to see his Redeemer at the Resurrection ; ac- 
cording to the latter, that he expected the same glorious vision as 
a disembodied spirit. 

It is, however, argued that.it is very remarkable that no indication 
save this of a belief in an immortality occurs in the book of Job. 
It would be natural, it is said, when Job’s friends charge him with 
wickedness, and attribute his sorrows to his sins, that he should at 
once answer, that, though miserable in this life, he yet had full 
hope of happiness in a better. As therefore no such reasoning is 
to be found, we must necessarily conclude that Job was ignorant 
of a future state ; and that this particular passage, instead of being 
an anticipation of a future Resurrection, is a prophetic declaration 
of his belief in what actually afterwards took place; namely, that, 
though for a time the disease which afflicted him was permitted to 
destroy his body, yet, in the end, God should be manifested to 
defend his cause, and that he should be permitted to see Him with 
his own eyes. 

I am inclined to attribute but little weight to the previous 
silence of Job concerning the life to come. Men at that time gen- 
erally believed that a special Providence brought good upon the 
righteous, and evil on the wicked in this life; and in the earlier 
days of the Jewish commonwealth it doubtless was so. Job shares 
this belief with his friends; yet he is conscious of his integrity, 
and defends himself earnestly against their accusations. It is 
hardly likely that he should have tried to disprove the justice of a 
creed which he held himself. Therefore he does not say that they 
were wrong in believing in a retributive Providence, or urge them 
to look forward from this life to a better. This would have been 


Sec. I1.] 


1So Rosenmiiller. Prefixum al ante analogy. ΤῸ reject a person, “ from 


being king, oO “forget a child so as 


wa significat defectum, ut Isai. xlix. 5% to love it,” —are vastly different no- 


15, "An obliviscetur mulier Silioli: sui orm 


resecta miseratione, i. e. ut non misereatur 
ejus. 1 Sam. xv. 26, Rejecit te Deus 


703 nia ut non sis rex. Ita ‘Twa 


accurate respondet priori hemistichio, ut 
utroque corpus suum dissolvi significet 
(Schol. in Job xix. 26). Whether the 
use of a) in the passages thus adduced 


from Isaiah and Samuel is at all similar 
to the use of the same preposition in this 
passage of Job, others must decide. To 
me it appears that there is little or no 


tions of the preposition », from that 


sought to be attached to it here, namely, 
“without my. flesh.” Rosenmiiller, hay 
ing given this sense to the preposition, 
is obliged to say, that it is only by a 
strong poetical figure that Job is said to 
see his Redeemer, “ without his flesh,” 
signifying merely, that, though much 
wasted with disease, he yet hoped to 
live to see his cause defended, and his 
uprightness vindicated. Should we ven- 
ture to apply such criticism to any pro- 
fane author ? 


206 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Arr. VIL 


in Job an improbable and unnatural course. But from the singular 
solemnity with which he ushers in the passage in question, the 
hope that he expresses that it may “be printed in a book,” nay, 
graven “in the rock for ever,’ we may well believe that he is 
about to give utterance to something different from what he has 
hitherto been speaking of, and to something so important that he 
wishes it to be preserved, not only for his own time, as a solemn 
assertion of his innocence, but that it should be handed down to all 
future generations, as a vital and an eternal truth. 

Now nothing could be more appropriate than such an intro- 
duction, if Job were about to speak of the general Resurrection, 
and his hope that he should be comforted and vindicated then. 
That was an argument unlike any he had urged before, and it 
was a truth of universal and constant interest, so that he might 
well wish to have the words which spake of it “printed in a 
book, yea, graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever.” 

It is true, there are expressions in the Book of Job which may 
be interpreted into a denial of the doctrine of a future existence. 
For instance, “‘ As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so 
he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more” (Job vii. 
9). ‘So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no 
more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep” (Job 
xiv. 12). And again (ver. 14) “If a man die, shall he live 
again?”’ Bishop Warburton lays great stress on these passages, 
as proving that Job was ignorant of a Resurrection, and even of 
a future state. But, in all fairness, do they mean any more than 
this, that if a man die, he shall live no more in this life; if he 
goes down to the grave, he shall come up no more, while this 
world is remaining? This interpretation fully satisfies the force of 
all the expressions, even of that strongest of all, ** man lieth down, 
and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake.” 
Nay, we may almost venture to say that this last expression has 
a more than commonly Christian sound; for the new Testament 
teaches us that the general Resurrection at the last day shall not 
be, till **the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the 
elements shall melt with fervent heat.’ (2 Pet. iii. 10, comp. Rev. 
xx. 11.) It may be added, that the very verse which follows this 
passage’ in Job (a passage which is thought so decisive against his 
belief in a hereafter) appears to carry with it a refutation of such 
a theory; for in that verse (Job xiv. 18) the patriarch prays that 
God ““ would hide him in the grave (ΟΞ in Hades), and keep 
him secret till His wrath was past; that He would appoint him a 


Sre. IL] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 207 


set time, and then remember him.’ What could be the meaning 
of God’s hiding him in Hades, or in the grave, till His wrath was 
past, and then after a set time remembering him, if such language 
was used by one who knew nothing of life and immortality? For 
the word Sheol, be it observed, whatever diversity of opinion there 
may be concerning it, has never been supposed by any one to mean 
anything which is unconnected with the state of the dead. It 
must be either the grave, or the state of departed souls. Choose 
which we will; Job wishes for a temporary concealment in the 
grave, or in the state of the departed, and then to be remembered, 
and, we can scarce fail to infer, to be raised up again. 

With such a hope and such an expectation will well correspond 
such expressions as, ““ Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him”’ 
(Job xiii. 15). But how shall we interpret them, if they be the 
language of one whose hopes were all bounded by this life ? 


In the book of Psalms, David, in a passage which we know to 
be prophetic of Messiah, speaks as follows: “1 have set the Lord 
always before me; because He is at my right hand I shall not be 
moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory! rejoiceth; yea 
my flesh also shall rest in confidence.? For Thou wilt not leave 
my soul in Hades, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see 
corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life: in Thy presence 
is the fulness of joy: at Thy right hand there are pleasures for 
evermore.” (Ps. xvi. 8-11.) 

In the ears of a Christian such language is so plainly expres- 
sive of the hope of resurrection, that it is difficult to attach any 
other meaning to it. Nay, we know that St. Peter quotes it as 
a prophecy that Christ should be raised from the dead, His soul 
not resting in Hades, His body not turning to corruption (Acts ii. 
25-31). The passage then, according to the Apostle’s comment 
on it, actually did mean a resurrection. The only question is, 
Did the Psalmist, when he wrote it, so understand it; or did he 
write of common things, unconsciously to himself and through the 
guidance of the Spirit, speaking deep mysteries? It is possible 
that the latter may have been the case. And yet the words chosen 
seem to make it improbable. Why does he say, after speaking of 
the gladness of his heart, and the rejoicing of his spirit, that ‘ even 
his flesh should rest in confidence”? This looks much like an 


a>) “ My glory,” probably a poetical expression for the heart or the soul. 
See Gesenius, s. v. " m2 in confidence, securely. 


208 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Arr. VIL 


assurance that not only the heart might rejoice in God, but even 
that the body had hope of immortality. And then, “Thou wilt 
not leave my soul in hell.” Had he meant that he should not be 
permitted to die, it would have been natural to say, ** Thou wilt 
not bring me down to hell.” But he who hopes not to be left in 
Hades, must surely have expectation of first going thither. The 
words therefore of themselves so plainly imply a resurrection, and 
are so apparently chosen for the purpose of expressing the hope of 
a resurrection, that, though we may admit that profound igno- 
vance on the subject may have kept the prophet from understanding 
them, and have blinded his eyes that he should ποῦ" 566 their sense, 
yet nothing short of this would have hindered him, who uttered 
the language, from feeling inspired with a hope full of immortality. 

Again, the view which David takes elsewhere of the difference 
between the end of the righteous and of the wicked is consonant 
with the hope of a future retribution, and otherwise is unintelli- 
gible. (Ps. xxxvii. 87, 38.) ‘‘ Mark the perfect man, and behold 
the upright: for the end of that man is peace. But the trans- 
gressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall 
be cut off.” 

In like manner his confidence in trial and troubles, when the 
. wicked prosper and the just are oppressed, has at least a striking 
resemblance to the language of one who looks for a time when 
the just shall be delivered, and the wicked consumed in judgment. 

Thus, in Psalm xxiii. 4, David says, ‘* Though I walk through 
the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for Thou 
art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me.” To “ walk 
through the valley of the shadow of death” is probably but a 
poetical phrase for “to die”; and to those who looked only for 
temporal blessings, death would be wellnigh the greatest * evil.” 
Hence he who could die and yet “ fear no evil,” must have had a 
hope after death. So in Psalm Ixxiii., if this were David's, then 
David, but if not, then Asaph, who is not likely to have known 
more than Dayid, having spoken of his having envied the wicked, 
when he saw them in prosperity, and when he found himself chast- 
ened and afflicted, concludes in this manner: ‘“ Thus my heart was 


1It must be remembered that those 
persons who think Job and David and 
others ignorant of a future state, yet ad- 
mit, nay contend, that all their neigh- 
bours round about were fully -cogelinee 
of such a doctrine. (See Warburton, 
Bk. v.§ v.) How then came it to pass 
that Job, who was an Arab, and David, 


who was a conqueror, and had dwelt 
among the Philistines, and become ac- 
quainted with many peoples, should use 
language concerning a tenet which they 
almost must have heard from neighbour- 
ing nations, and yet not understand it 
themselves ? 


Szc. 111 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 209 


grieved, and I was pricked in my reins. So foolish was I, and ig- 
norant; I was as a beast before Thee. Nevertheless I am always 
with Thee; Thou hast holden me by my right hand. Thou shalt 
guide me with thy counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory” 
(Ps. Ixxiii. 21-24). The “glory” is not of necessity glory ever- 
lasting, but it is hardly necessary to observe that such a sense of 
the word suits the context better than any lower interpretation 
of it. 

As David thus seems to have had hopes of something after 
death, so his son Solomon knew, that ““ when a wicked man dieth, 
his expectation shall perish” (Prov. xi. 7); that ‘The wicked is 
driven away in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in his 
death” (Prov. xiv. 82). But what hope has the righteous more 
than the wicked, or how does the expectation of the wicked, more 
than that of the just, perish when he dieth; unless there be a 
something after death, which gives hope to the one, but takes it 
away from the other? Again, Solomon tells us (Eccles. xii. 7), 
that at death “shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the 
spirit shall return to God who gave it;”’ signifying, as it plainly 
seems, that, when the body returns to that from which it was 
taken, the spirit shall return into the hand of Him who gave it, not 


perishing with the body, but awaiting the judgment of its God.? 


1 There are, no doubt, some expres- 
sions in the Psalms, which seem to im- 
ply an ignorance of a future life, 6. σ. : — 

“In death there is no remembrance of 
Thee; in the grave who shall give Thee 
thanks? (Ps. vi. 5.) “Shall the dust 
praise Thee? shall it declare Thy truth ?” 
(Ps. xxx. 9.) ‘ Wilt Thou show won- 
ders to the dead? shall the dead arise 
and praise Thee ? shall thy loving-kind- 
ness be declared in the grave, or thy 
faithfulness in destruction? Shall thy 
wonders be known in the dark, and thy 
righteousness in the land of forgetful- 
ness ?” (Ps. Ixxxviii. 10-12.) 

These are certainly remarkable ex- 
pressions, but they do not appear unac- 
countable in a person who had been 
taught by the dispensation under which 
he lived to look for temporal blessings 
as a reward for obedience, even though 
he was a believer in a future state. It is 
doubtful whether such language might 
not be used even by a Christian. Death 
is certainly a part of the curse; and 
hence there is no wonder if the pious 
Jew dreaded it. And speaking concern- 
ing the silence of death does not neces- 
sarily imply a total disbelief in a resur- 
rection. The silence and forgetfulness 


27 


may mean only forgetfulness as regards 
this world. 

2 On this passage see Bishop Bull, 
Works, Oxf. 1827, 1. p. 29. Bishop War- 
burton’s strongest passage is from Eccle- 
siastes : — 

“The living know that they shall die ; 
but the dead know not anything, neither 
have they any more a reward: for the 
memory of them is forgotten.” Eccles. 
ix. 5. The book of Ecclesiastes is one 
the language of which is singularly ob- 
scure. The passage in question, if taken 
in its context, may, however, be inter- 
preted with no great difficulty. The 
royal Preacher observes, that there is one 
event to all men, from which no one shall 
escape; and whatever good things he 
may enjoy in this life, yet death will 
surely soon deprive him of them all. 
This may naturally embitter earthly en- 
joyments, for the living know that they 
shall die, and they may be assured that 
in death they will lose their conscious- 
ness of all things that have given them 
pleasure here, and receive no more re- 
ward or emolument (> str) from them. 


* Their love and hatred and envy per- 
ish; and they have no longer a portion 
in anything that is done under the sun.” 


210 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. ᾿ς [Art. VIL 


When we come to the prophets, it is scarcely denied by any 
that we meet with a mention of immortality. Bishop Warburton, 
who is probably the ablest writer, at least in the English language, 
in favour of the opinion that the early Jews knew nothing of a 
future state, yet admits that in the prophetic writings we begin 
to see some clear intimations of that doctrine which was to be 
fully brought to light in the Gospel. 

Two remarkable passages are the following: (Isai. xxvi. 19) 
** Thy dead men shall live ; together with my dead body shall they 
arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is 
as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” It is 
not necessary to determine whether there be here a distinct proph- 
ecy of the Resurrection. It is enough to show that Isaiah, and 
those he wrote for, believed in a Resurrection, if, to express even 
something else, he uses words to illustrate it, which in their most 
natural sense imply a Resurrection. When we use a figurative 
expression, we borrow the figures which we use from things fa- 
miliar and understood among us. 

In the book of Daniel a description is given, which so exactly 
corresponds with the Christian description of the last Judgment 
and the general Resurrection, that it must require the greatest in- 
genuity to give any other sense to it: “ At that time thy people 
shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the 
book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting 
contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of 
the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the 
stars forever and ever”? (Dan. xii. 1-3). 

We have already seen (under Art. III.) that the Jews, who 
lived at the time of our Saviour, with the exception of the sect of 
the Sadducees, not only believed in the immortality of the soul, but 
in a Resurrection, and in an intermediate state between death and 
Judgment. Thus St. Paul’s appeal, when he was brought before 
the Sanhedrim, was agreeable to all, except the sect of the Sad- 
ducees: ‘“ Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Phar- 
isee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in 
question.”” And the reason of this was, that, though the small and 
heretical sect of the Sadducees “said there was no resurrection, 


Now this seems the obvious meaning of plain that he is s peaking goed tena of got Ἐ 
the soonest beginning ver. 2 and ending losing by death t 

ver. 6 oes this prove that Solomon consciousness of thee good in this aa 
did not believe in a future life? It is 


Sec. Π.] JF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 211 


neither angel nor spirit,” yet the more orthodox, and more exten- 
sive sect of the “* Pharisees confessed both ” (Acts xxiii. 6, 8). 

There may have been sufficient obscurity in the old Testament 
Scriptures to admit of the possibility of the existence of two differ- 
ent sects, the one holding, the other denying, a future immortality ; 
yet there is abundant evidence from the new Testament that the 
true interpretation was that adopted by the Pharisees, and that the 
Sadducees erred from ignorance and pride. Our Lord indeed, 
when the Sadducees came to Him and propounded to Him a diffi- 
culty concerning the Resurrection, tells them at once, that they 
“erred, not knowing the Scriptures” (Matt. xxii. 29). And 
though the passage which our Lord adduces from the books of 
Moses (Exod. iii. 6), “I am the God of Abraham, the God of 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” requires some explanation to show 
that it proved the doctrine in question, yet it is quite plain that 
our Lord reproves the Sadducees for dulness in not having learned 
from the old Testament that ‘all men live to God.” 

But the passage in the new Testament, which most fully as- 
sures us that the ancient fathers looked for heavenly promises, is 
the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the first 
twelve verses the Apostle had been speaking of the faith of Abel, 
Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, and perhaps of Isaac and Jacob; 
and he then adds (vv. 13-16), “‘ These all died in faith, not hav- 
ing received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were 
persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they 
were strangers and pilgrims upon earth. For they that say such 
things, declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if 
they had been mindful of that country from whence they came 
out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But 
now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore 
God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He hath prepared | 
for them a city.” In like manner (vv. 25, 26) he tells us, that 
Moses chose “rather to suffer affliction with the people of God 
than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the re- | 
proach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he 
had respect unto the recompense of the reward.” And other saints 
of the old Testament, he says, “ were tortured, not accepting de- 
liverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” Now 
those “‘ who seek a better country, that is, a heavenly,” those who 
despise the pleasures of sin and choose to suffer through life per- 
secution with the people of God, “having respect to the recom- 
pense of reward,” those who endure torture, “not accepting de- 


212 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Art. VIL 


liverance,” that “they may obtain a better resurrection,” must 
certainly have looked for more than transitory promises, even for 
those very promises of life and immortality which they indeed 
saw but afar off, but which at length the Lord Jesus by the Gospel 
fully brought to light. 

It may seem unnecessary to add anything further to show that 
the old Testament is not contrary to the new. Yet it is worth 
while to remark that the constant quotation of the old Testament 
by the writers of the new, and their mode of quoting it to confirm 
and ratify their own teaching, is abundant proof that the one 
closely corresponds with the other. Our Lord expressly asserts 
that the old Testament Scriptures are “they which testify of 
Him” (John v. 89). The people of Berea are spoken of with 
high commendation, because they searched the old Testament to 
see whether the preaching of the Apostles was the truth; and we 
read that they were so convinced by this daily searching of the 
Scriptures, that many of them were led to believe (Acts xvii. 11, 
12). Nay, St. Paul tells Timothy, that those Scriptures of the old 
Testament, which he had known from a child, “* were able to make 
him wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 
2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. 

It is certain, therefore, that they who wrote, and He in whose 
name they wrote the Scriptures of the new Testament, so far from 
holding that the old Testament was different from the new, ever 
held and taught their entire agreement, and appealed to the old 
Testament as the strongest confirmation of their doctrine, and as 
bearing abundant testimony to their sacred mission and their heay- 
enly inspiration. 


II. But though the old Testament is not contrary to the new, 
yet, 1. the ceremonial of the Jewish Law is abolished ; but, 2. the 
commandments called moral still continue in force. 

1. The very end and object of the Jewish ceremonial were 
such that of necessity it must have passed away. It has already 
been seen that the Law of Moses was, first, the code of statute- 
law for the Theocratic commonwealth; and, secondly, a system of 
types and emblems preparatory to the coming of the Messiah, who 
was to fulfil them all. These two purposes it served so long as 
these purposes existed. But now the Jewish Theocracy has given 
place to the Christian Church; and the great Antitype has come, 
to whom all the typical ceremonies looked forward. There is now 
therefore no longer any reason for the continuance of the Mosaic 


Sec. II.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 213 


Law. Moses and Elias, the Law and the Prophets, have passed 
away, and we see no one but Jesus only, to whom we are to listen, 
as God’s beloved Son. 

There cannot be at present any kingdom circumstanced as the 
kingdom of Israel was. God is no longer an earthly Sovereign, 
reigning exclusively over the Jewish nation as their temporal King. 
He is indeed the great King in all the earth, but not the particular 
Ruler of a single commonwealth. The Lord Jesus sits on His 
Mediatorial Throne. But His is a spiritual dominion. It is in- 
deed that great fifth empire, which Daniel saw imaged by a stone 
hewn without hands, which in course of time filled the earth. But 
it is nevertheless a kingdom not of this world; and therefore His 
servants are not to fight, nor to call down fire from Heaven on 
their enemies, nor to take the sword, lest they perish by the sword. 
The weapons of their warfare are not carnal; their citizenship is in 
Heaven ; their fellow-citizens are the saints; their fellow-subjects 
the household of God. 

It is therefore unfit that any kingdom should be governed by 
the laws, or regulated by the ceremonial of the Jewish polity. 
The court of an earthly sovereign must be differently ordered from 
the court of the King of Heaven; the laws, which relate to all the 
governments of this world, dita from those which had refer- 
ence to the supremacy of the Lorp. We have seen that blas- 
phemy, idolatry, and similar offences were under the Jewish econ- 
omy not merely crimes against religion, they were also distinctly 
crimes, and that of the highest character, against the State. They 
tended to nothing less than the dethroning of the King, and put- 
ting an usurper in His room. It is therefore clear, that, on princi- 
ples of civil justice, they were crimes which deserved to be pun- 
ished with death. But in modern nations they are religious, not 
civil offences; and though the magistrate may justly restrain such 
acts or words as tend to the offence of society, or the endangering 
of morality, yet he would not be justified in proceeding against 
the blasphemer or the idolater on the principle on which the mag- 
istrate was bound to proceed against them in Israel, where their 
crimes were both civil and religious, derogatory to the honour of 
God, and at the same time rebellion against the authority of the 
State. Religious wars and religious persecutions are both utterly 
alien from the spirit of Christianity. James and John, who would 
have called down fire, Peter who smote off the ear of Malchus, 
both thought and acted in the spirit of the Jewish, not of the 
Christian economy; and were herein types of the Dominicans, 


214 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Arr. VIL 


who would convert or destroy by the rack and the flame, and of 
the zealots of later times, who in fighting for religious liberty, 
shouted as their war-cry, ‘“ The sword of the Lord and of 
Gideon !” 

We know well how strongly St. Paul condemns those who ad- — 
hered to the Jewish ceremonial. Our Lord, indeed, had declared 
that * one jot or tittle should not pass away till all was fulfilled.” } 
But all was fulfilled when the sceptre departed from Judah, and 
so the Jewish commonwealth was dissolved; and when the types 
of the Law had their full accomplishment in their great Antitype, 
our Prophet, Priest, and King. The argument of the whole Epis- 
tle to the Galatians is directed against the observance of Jewish 
ceremonies. The Epistle to the Hebrews equally shows that the 
Law had “ waxed old, and was ready to vanish away,” and that, 
its accomplishment being perfected in Christ, there was no longer 
benefit to be gained by adhering to it. Indeed, in the Epistle to 
the Galatians the Apostle declares, that if a man is cireumcised, 
and strives to keep the Law (i. 6. the ceremonial Law of Moses), 
Christ has become of no effect to him, he has fallen from grace.” 

But, thus clear though it be, that the ceremonial Law is no 
‘onger binding on a Christian or on a commonwealth, we ought 
yet to bear in mind that the organization of the Jewish State 
proceeded from above. It was, in some degree, a model republic. 
It was, no doubt, in a particular age of the world, under peculiar 
circumstances, and with a special object, that the Jewish nation 
was set apart to be God’s peculiar people, His own kingdom upon 
earth. But taking all these into account, we ought still to be 
able to derive lessons of political wisdom from the ordinances ap- 
pointed by the Allwise for the government of His own chosen race. 
We can never again see a constitution and a statute-law devised by 
infinite Wisdom. We know from our Lord’s own words, that in 
some respects the enactments of the Mosaic economy, though com- 
ing from God, were yet not perfect, because of the hardness of 
heart of those for whom they were designed;* and therefore, of 
course, we must take into account, not only the particular circum- 
stances, but also the particular character of the people; but when 
we have made such allowances, we may rest assured that the com- 
monwealth of Israel would be the fittest pattern and type which 
legislators could adopt for the government of empires.‘ 


1 Matt. v. 18. dom does indeed preclude the notion of 
2 Gal. v. 4. its being a religion of ceremony. We 
8 Matt, xix. 8, must not, however, run into the ex- 
* The spiritual nature of Christ’s king- treme of supposing that, because the 


Sec. Π.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


215 


2. As regards that portion of the Law of Moses which is called 
moral, we must plainly perceive that it is founded in the eternal 
principles of justice and truth. It is not a code of enactments, 
given for the temporary guidance of a temporary government ; it 
is rather a system of moral precepts, for the direction and instruc- 
tion of rational and accountable beings. Indeed, as God was the 
King of Israel, moral obedience was in itself a portion of civil 
obedience. Yet the principle, from which its obligation resulted, 
was not the relation of a subject to his king, but the relation of a 
creature to his God. The former was a temporary relation, exist- 
ing only whilst the Jewish commonwealth should last; the other is 
an eternal relation, which must endure forever and ever. The 
moral Law, then, which is God’s will, was holy and perfect, even 
as He is perfect. And St. Paul, when he speaks of it as incapable 
of justifying, yet carefully guards against any misapprehension of 
his words, as though he should be supposed to speak disparagingly 
of the Law itself. He declares that “‘ the Law is holy, and the 
commandment holy, and just, and good”? (Rom. vii. 12). He 
says that “ the Law is spiritual,” and the reason why it could not 
sanctify man was not its own deficiency, for in itself, and for its 
own end, it was perfect, but because of the weakness and sinful- 
ness of man; because the natural man is ‘‘ carnal, sold under sin,” 
and so unable to fulfil the law; and the more perfect the Law, the 
more unable man is to live up to it (Rom. vii. 14). But that it is 
still binding upon Christians, appears sufficiently from the same 
Apostle’s reasoning, who, when he has shown that by nature man 
cannot obey the Law, goes on just after to assert, that what could 
not be done by man’s natural weakness, could be, and was done, 
by the power of God; even “that the righteousness of the Law 
should be fulfilled in them, who walked not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit’? (Rom. viii. 4). 

Our Lord, in the Sermon on the Mount, not only shows that 
the moral law is binding on Christians, but shows, moreover, that 
it is binding in a much stricter and more spiritual sense than was 
generally understood by the Jews. It had been taught in the 
Law that we should not commit adultery. But Christ enjoined 


temporal or carnal ceremonies of the 


Apostles enjoined ordinances of public 
Mosaic Law were done away in Christ, 


worship, and exercised ecclesiastical dis- 


therefore all outward ordinances are in- 
consistent with Christian worship. We 
must remember that man is a creature 
compounded of soul and body, and there- 
fore needing outward as well as inward 
agency. Accordingly, our Lord ordained 
Sacraments, and a ministry ; and the 


cipline; all which are essential to the 
existence of a Church in this world, 
though they may be unnecessary in that 
city “ where there shall be no temple ; 
for the Lord God Almighty and the 
Lamb shall be the temple of it.” 


216 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Arr. VIL 


that we should not suffer an impure look, or an unholy thought 
(Matt. v. 27, 28). It had been taught in the Law, that we should 
dono murder. But Christ taught that the angry feeling and the 
angry word, which are the first steps to violence, and might in 
some cases lead to murder, were breaches of that commandment, 
and therefore unfit to be permitted in Christian men (Matt. v. 21, 
22). The ordinances of the Law were expressed in terms of sim- 
ple command and prohibition, and were looked on in a light suited 
to the carnal nature of the dispensation, in which they were given. 
The Pharisees, who were jealous for the Law, yet mostly looked 
no farther than the letter, satisfied if they abstained from absolute 
violation of its negative, and fulfilled the literal injunctions of its 
positive precepts. But our Lord told His disciples, that, except 
their righteousness exceeded such righteousness of the Scribes 
and Pharisees, they should in no case enter into the kingdom of 
Heaven (Matt. v. 20). His was a spiritual kingdom, and He 
required spiritual obedience. Mere formal compliance with the 
ordinances of the Law was insufficient for a Christian, whose heart 
must be brought into captivity to the will of God. Yet because 
the obedience must be spiritual, it did not follow that it should not 
be real. On the contrary, it was to be more real, yea, more strict. 
For subjection to the spirit of the Law necessarily involves sub- 
jection to the letter, though obedience to the letter does not of 
necessity produce obedience to the spirit. A man may cherish 
lust and anger without their breaking forth into murder and adul- 
tery; but if he checks every rising of evil, he cannot be guilty of 
the more deliberate wickedness. The first step cannot be arrested, 
and yet the last plunge be taken. 

But if there could be any question as to our Saviour’s teaching, 
one sentence alone should set it at rest: ‘*‘ Whosoever therefore 
shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men 
so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but 
whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great 
in the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. v. 19). 

It is most true that some.of the moral commandments are ac- 
companied by sanctions which have respect to the state of things 
under the Jewish Theocracy. For example, the fifth command- 
ment enjoins obedience to parents, with the promise, “ that thy 
days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth 
thee.” But this by no means proves that the injunction is not 
binding upon all. All we can learn from it is, that, beyond the 
sanctions by which the eternal will of God is upheld in all religion, 


Sec. 11. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 17 


natural or revealed, the Jew, as a subject of the Theocracy, had 
also temporal promises to be expected as the reward of obedience ; 
which, from the peculiar nature of the Mosaic economy, were con- 
stantly put prominently forward. And, in the case of this particu- 
lar commandment, St. Paul expressly enjoins all Christian children 
to observe it, on the very ground that it was a commandment of 
the Law of God. And he adds, as a special motive for attending 
to this commandment, that it must plainly have been an important 
commandment, inasmuch as in the Law it was the first to which a 
promise was specially attached. ‘+ Children, obey your parents in 
the Lord, for this is right. Honour thy father and mother, which 
is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with 
thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth’ (Eph. vi. 1, 2, 
3). The Apostle first enjoins the duty, quotes in confirmation of 
his injunction the words of the commandment, and then shows the 
peculiar importance of that commandment, by pointing out that, 
under the Mosaic economy, a special promise of blessing was an- 
nexed to it. This by no means shows that we are to fulfil this 
commandment in hope of that peculiar promise ; but it shows that 
the commandment is binding on Christians as well as upon Jews; 
and that it is binding, because it is a part of the moral Law given 
by God to man, which is in itself unchangeable —as unchangeable 
as He who gave it. 


ARTICLE VIII. 


----Φ---- 


Of the Three Creeds, De Tribus Symbolis. 


Tue Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Sympora tria, Nicenum, Athanasii, et 
Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is quod vulgo Apostolorum appellatur, om- 
commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, nino recipienda sunt, et credenda, nam 
ought thoroughly to be received and be- firmissimis Scripturarum testimoniis pro- 
lieved: for they may be proved by most bari possunt. 
certain warrants of Holy Scripture. 





[The American Article reads, “ The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly 
called the Apostles’ Creed,” &¢. There is no mention, therefore, of “ the Creed 
of Athanasius,” and, correspondently, it does not appear in our Service. 

That our Church accepts the Athanasian definition is placed beyond doubt, by 
the declaration in the Preface to the Prayer Book, that we do not intend to depart 
‘from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine ;” by the retention 
of the Preface for Trinity Sunday in the office for Holy Communion, and by the 
adoption of the first five Articles. 

That she is not singular in omitting the Athanasian Symbol from her public 
worship, is proved by the fact that it does not occur in the authorized formularies 
of the Orthodox Greek Church. And these two facts must, it would seem, place 
her beyond any well-grounded charge of unsoundness, or even carelessness, on such 
a vital point. 

Bishop White’s “‘ Memoirs ” show, that all these considerations were present to 
the minds of the Bishops — White and Seabury — who composed the House of 
Bishops in 1789. Whether they were equally present to the minds of the other 
House is, to say the least, uncertain. That body was very strenuous in its opposi- 
tion, refusing to allow the insertion of the Creed — or, as it should rather be called, 
Hymn —at all, even with the provision that it might be used or omitted at discre- 
tion. This refusal the New England clergy, not without reason, considered intol- 
erant. The difficulty probably arose from those clauses which even Dr. Waterland 
thought might be separated from the symbol itself. — J. W.| 





ΒΈΟΤΙΟΝ I.—OF CREEDS IN GENERAL. 


5 aaa Church, after having defined the authority to which she 
appeals for the truth of her doctrines, proceeds to require 
belief in those formularies of faith which from very early times 
had been in constant use in the Church universal, and that upon 
the principle already laid down, namely, that they are in strict 
accordance with holy Scripture. 

It seems generally admitted that the probable origin of Creeds 


Sxc. I.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 


219 


is to be traced to the form or confession of faith, which was pro- 
pounded to the Catechumens previously to their baptism. In the 
Scriptures such forms appear to have been brief. Our Lord com- 
manded that men should be baptized “‘in the Name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” and perhaps a confes- 
sion in some such simple form as, “1 believe in the Father, and in 
the Son, and in the Holy Ghost,” was all that was at first required. 
Indeed, Philip required of the Eunuch no more than a profession 
of a belief that “ Jesus Christ was the Son of God.”? ΤῈ is prob- 
able that the Apostles and their immediate disciples used several 
Creeds, differing in form, though not in substance. Hence, no 
certain form existing, all Churches were at liberty to make their 
own Creed, as they did their own liturgies, not being tied to a 
particular form of words, so long as they kept to the analogy of 
faith and doctrine delivered by the Apostles. Then, as heretics 
arose who denied the fundamental doctrines of the faith, the 
᾿ Creeds became gradually enlarged, to guard the truth from their 
insidious designs and false expositions. 

Dr. Grabe, who examined the question as to what forms were 
used even in the Apostles’ days, came to a conclusion that all the 
Articles in the Creed commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, were 
in use in the Apostolic Confessions of faith, with the exception of 
these three, “" The Communion of Saints,” “‘ the Holy Catholic 
Church,” and “the descent into Hell.’’? 

Many confessions of faith are to be found, nearly corresponding 
with the Creeds which we now possess, in the writings of the ear- 
liest fathers. For example, in Justin Martyr, Irenzeus, Tertullian, 
Origen, Cyprian, the Apostolic Constitutions.2 We have also 
Creeds of several different Churches preserved to us, agreeing 
in substance, but slightly varying in form; as the Creed of Jeru- 
salem, Cesarea, Alexandria, Antioch, Aquileia, ὅθ. But until 
the time of the Council of Nice, there does not appear to have 
been any one particular Creed, which prevailed universally, in 
exactly the same words, and commended by the same universal 
authority. 


1 See King, On the Creed, p. 88; Wall, 
On Infant Baptism, τι. pt. τι. ch. rx. 
§ x. p. 489. 

2 Bingham’s Eccles. Antiq. Bk. x. ch. 


testimony to the doctrines expressed by 
them in the earliest ecclesiastical writ- 
ings. Evidence of this may be seen as 
regards one of them, “ ‘The descent into 


11. δὲ 6, 7. It is not to be supposed, 
because these Articles do not occur in 
the most ancient copies of the Creed, that 
they were therefore of comparatively 
modern invention. There is abundant 


Hell,” under Art. 111. 
3 These are given at length in Wall, as 
above; andin Bingham, Bk. x. ch. 1v. 
* See them at length in Bingham, as 
above. 


220 OF THE THREE CREEDS. 


The prevalence, however, of some authoritative standard in 
the Church, although varied by diversity of expression, is appar- 
ent from the language of many of the earliest Christian writers. 
Thus, Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others, 
speak of a “Canon, or rule of faith, according to which we be- 
lieve in one God Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His Son, &c.”’ 
And it is quite clear that this Κανὼν ἀληθείας, or Regula fidei, was 
no other than the Creed of the Church, expressed in a regular 
formulary.? 

The commonest name by which the Creed was designated, was 
that of Σύμβολον, or Symbolum. The meaning of the term is 
confessedly obscure. (1) It has been said to have arisen from 
the fact that the twelve Apostles met together, and each contrib- 
uted (συνέβαλον) one article to the Creed ; hence called Symbolum, 
or collation. (2) It has been said to mean a Collation, or Epit- 
ome of Christian doctrine. (3) It has been supposed to be, like 
the Tessera Militaris among the Roman soldiers, a symbol, or sign, 
by which the soldiers of the Cross were distinguished from hea- 
thens or heretics. (4) It has been thought again that it was bor- 
rowed from the Military oath (sacramentum), by which the Roman 
soldiers bound themselves to serve their general? (5) And 
lastly, Lord King has suggested that it may have been borrowed 
from the religious services of the ancient heathens, who gave to 
those who were initiated into their mysteries certain signs or 
marks (symbola), whereby they knew one another, and were dis- 
tinguished from the rest of the world.* 

It is not very easy to decide which of these five senses may 
with most propriety be attached to the word. The first is the 
least probable, inasmuch as the tradition on which it rests appears 
not to have existed before the fourth century.* 

The word “ Creed,” by which these ancient formularies of faith 
are designated in English, is derived from the word Credo, with 
which the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds commence. 


[Arr. VIIL 


1 See Bingham, Bk. x. ch. 111. ὃ 2; Bp. 
Marsh, Lectures, Camb. 1828, p. 470. See 
also the meaning of the term, “ Rule of 
faith,” discussed under Art. vr. 

* Symbolum cordis signaculum, et nos- 
tre militie sacramentum. — Ambros. 
Lib. 111. De velandis Virginibus, apud 
Suicer. 

ὃ Suicer, voc. Σύμβολον. ---- Bingham, 
Bk. x. ch. 1m. King, On the Creed, pp. 
6, 11, &e. Wheatley, Dr. Hey, and 


others have adopted King’s derivation. 
Bingham totally rejects it. 

*St. Augustine says, the name was 
given, “quia symbolum inter se faciunt 
mercatores, quo eorum societas pacto 
fidei teneatur. Et vestra societas est 
commercium spiritualium, ut similes 
sitis. negotiatoribus bonam margaritam 
querentibus.”— Serm. coxir. Oper. Tom 
vy. p. 985. Paris, 1683. 


Sec. IL] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 221° 


Srcrion II. — THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 


UFINUS mentions a tradition, handed down from ancient 

times, that, after our Lord’s ascension, the Apostles, having 
received the gift of tongues, and a command to go and preach to 
all nations, when about to depart from one another, determined to 
appoint one rule of preaching, that they should not set forth diverse 
things to their converts. Accordingly, being met together, and 
inspired by the Holy Ghost, they drew up the Apostles’ Creed, 
contributing to the common stock what each one thought good.’ — 
The author of the Sermons de Tempore, improperly ascribed to 
Augustine,? tells us that ““ Peter said, I believe in God the Father 
Almighty; John said, Maker of Heaven and earth; James said, 
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Andrew said, Who 
was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; 
Philip said, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and 
buried; Thomas said, He descended into Hell, the third day He 
rose again from the dead; Bartholomew said, He ascended into 
Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Al- 
mighty ; Matthew said, From thence He shall come to judge the 
quick and the dead; James the son of Alphzeus said, I believe in 
the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church; Simon Zelotes said, 
The Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins; Jude the 
brother of James said, The Resurrection of the Flesh; Matthias 
concluded with, The Life Everlasting.”’ 

The principal objections to the truth of these traditions, which 
are fatal to the last, and nearly fatal to the other, are these : — 

First, that Rufinus himself tells us, that the article of the 
descent into hell was not in the Roman (i. 6. the Apostles’), nor 
in the Eastern Creeds. It has been proved by Archbishop Usher 
and Bishop Pearson, that this statement is true ; and also, that two 
other articles, ‘‘ the Communion of Saints’ and “the Life Ever- 
lasting,” were wanting in the more ancient Creeds. 

Secondly, the formation and existence of the Creed is not men- 
tioned in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in any of the more ancient 
fathers or Councils ; which is most extraordinary, if any such for- 
mulary was known to have existed, a formulary which would have 

1 Rufinus, Expositio in Symb. Apost.ad are “ conferendo in unum quod sentiebat 
calcem Cypriani, p.17, Oxf. 1682; King, unusquisque.” 
p. 24; Bingham, Bk. x. ch, 111. § 5. 2Serm. De Tempore, 115; Augustini 


Bingham translates, “each one contribut- Opera, Paris, 1683, Tom. v. Append. p. 
ing his sentence.” But Rufinus’s words 395, Serm. ccxut. 


222 OF THE THREE CREEDS. (Arr. VOL. 


had the full authority of Scripture itself, and would therefore, 
probably, have been continually appealed to, especially in Councils, 
where new confessions of faith were composed. 

Thirdly, it is plain that the ancient Creeds, though alike in 
substance, were not alike in words; which could never have been 
the case, if one authoritative form had been handed down from the 
Apostles. 

Fourthly, we may add to this, that the ancients scrupulously 
avoided committing the Creed to writing; and it is hardly probable, 
if there was in the Church a deposit so precious as a Creed drawn 
up by the Apostles, that it would have been left to the uncertainty 
of oral tradition, or that, if it were so left, it would have been pre- 
served in its perfect integrity.” 

But though this Creed was not drawn up by the Apostles them- 
selves, it may well be called Apostolic, both as containing the doc- 
trines taught by the Apostles, and as being in substance the same 
as was used in the Church from the times of the Apostles them- 
selves. This will appear to any one who will compare it with the 
various ancient forms preserved in the works of the most ancient 
fathers, and which may be seen in Bingham, Wall, and other well- 
known writers already referred to.’ 

It was, no doubt, “*the work neither of one man nor of one 
day ;” yet it is probable that the Apostles themselves used a form 
in the main agreeing with the Creed as we now have it, except 
that the articles concerning the descent into hell, the communion 
of saints, and the life everlasting, were most likely of later origin. 
The form indeed was never committed to writing, but, being very 
short, was easily retained in the memory, and taught to the cate- 
chumens, to be repeated by them at their baptism. It differed in 
different Churches in some verbal particulars, and was reduced to 
more regular form, owing to the necessity of guarding against par- 
ticular errors. The form most nearly corresponding to that now 
called the Apostles’ Creed, was the Creed of the Church of Rome ; 
though even that Creed lacked the three clauses mentioned above.‘ 
And it is an opinion, not without great probability, that the rea- 
son why it was called Apostles’ Creed was, that the Church of 
Rome being the only Church in the West which could undeni- 
ably claim an Apostle for its founder, its see was called the Apos- 
tolic See, and hence its Creed was called the Apostolic Creed. 


1 See Suicer, s. v. Σύμβολον; King, Pearson, at the head of every Article in 


Pp. 28 ; eee Bk. x. ch. m1. § 5. his Exposition of the Creed. 
2See A ug. Fay Tom. v. p. 988. See ὁ Bingham, Bk. x. ch. 111. 2 Le 
also King, 5 Wall, On Infant ΜΝ τι. ch 


8 Suicer, 1 Bingham, and Wall, asabove; ΙΧ. p. 472. Oxford, 1 


Sec. III] OF THE THREE CREEDS.. 223 


It is hardly necessary here to enter into any exposition, or proof 
from Scripture of the different clauses of the Apostles’ Creed. 
Most of them occur in the Articles of the Church of England. 
The few which are not expressed in them may be more profitably 
considered in regular treatises on the Creed, than in a necessarily 
brief exposition of the Articles. 





Srecrion III. — THE NICENE CREED. 


WHEN the Council of Nice met, a. p. 325, summoned by the 
authority of the Emperor Constantine, Eusebius, Bishop of 
Czesarea in Palestine, recited to the assembled fathers the Creed, 
which he professed to have received from the bishops which were 
before him, into which he had been baptized, even as he had 
learned from the Scriptures, and such as in his episcopate he had 
believed and taught. The form of it was as follows: — 

‘We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all 
things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only- 
begotten Son, begotten before every creature (Πρωτότοκον πάσης 
κτίσεως, Col. i. 15); begotten of the Father before all worlds, by 
whom all things were made ; who for our salvation was made flesh, 
and conversed among men, and suffered and rose again the third 
day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again with glory 
to judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in the Holy 
Ghost.” 

This confession of faith both Constantine and the assembled 
bishops unanimously received ; and it should seem that this would 
have been all that was required. But Arius himself, soon after the 
Council, a. Ὁ. 328, delivered a Creed to the Emperor, which was 
unobjectionable, if viewed by itself, but which studiously omitted 
anything which might have led him either to express or to abjure - 
his most heretical opinions ;! namely, that there was a time when 


1 Arius’s Creed runs thus :— 


incarnate, and suffered, and rose again, 
“© We believe in one God, the Father 


and ascended into Heaven, and shall 


Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son 
our Lord, begotten of Him before all 
ages, God the Word, by whom all things 
were made that are in Heaven and that 
are in earth ; who descended, and was 


come again to judge the quick and the 
dead: and in the Holy Ghost; and in 
the resurrection of the flesh, and in the 
life of the world to come, and in the 
kingdom of Heaven; And in one Cath 


224 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Arr. VILL 


the Son of God was not, that He was made out of nothing, and that 
He was not of one substance with the Father. This shows that 
there was an absolute necessity that the Council should word its 
Confession of faith, not only so as to express the belief of sound 
Christians, but also so as to guard against the errors of the Arians. 
Accordingly, the symbol set forth by the Council was in ‘these 
words : — 

““We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all 
things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the 
substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, very God 
of very God, Begotten, not made; being of one substance with 
the Father: by whom all things were made, both things in Heaven 
and things in earth; who, for us men and for our salvation, came 
down, and was incarnate, and was made man: He suffered, and 
rose again the third day: and ascended into Heaven: and shall 
come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy 
Ghost. 

** And those who say that there was a time when he was not; 
or that before He was begotten, He was not ; or that He was made 
out of nothing ; or who say that the Son of God is of any other 
substance, or that He is changeable or unstable, these the Catholic 
and Apostolic Church anathematizes.” } 

The Nicene Creed thus set forth, and the decrees of the Council 
against Arius, were received by the whole Church throughout the 
world, and thus marked by the stamp of Catholicity. Athanasius, 
in A. D. 363, informs us, that all the Churches in the world, whether 
in Europe, Asia, or Africa, approved of the Nicene faith, except a 
few persons who followed Arius.? 

It appears to many that this Creed of the Council of Nice 
- was but an abridgment of the Creed commonly used in many 
parts of the Church, and that the reason why it extended no 
further than to the Article, “1 believe in the Holy Ghost,” was, 
because it was intended to lay a stress on those Articles concerning 
our Lord, to which the heresy of Arius was opposed. Epiphanius, 
who wrote his Anchorate some time before the Council of Con- 


olic Church of God, from one πον of the also Athanasii Opera, Tom. 1. p. 247, 

earth to the other.’— Soer. H. E. Lib. Epist. ad Jovian, Colon. 1686. 

1. 6. 26; Suicer, voc. Σύμθυλον ; Bing- Καὶ ταύτης σύμψηφοι τυγχάνουσι πᾶσαι 

πον Bk. ba, ob ιν, § 10; Wall, Part rv. να ar : ἰχοὺ κατὰ τόπον Ἐκκλήσιαι .... 
Ix. yov τὰ ‘Apsiov συν τ -- 

1 The Greek may be seen in Routh’s pist. ad Jovian, Tom, 1. p. 246. 
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula,Tom. Palmer, On the Church, Pt. rv. ch. aan 
αν p. 861; and in Suicer, voc. Σύμβολον ; 


Sze. IL.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 225 


stantinople, says, that every catechumen repeated at his baptism, 
from the time of the Council of Nice to the tenth year of Valen- 
tinian and Valens, a. Ὁ. 873, a Creed in the following words : — 

‘‘We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of 
Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: and in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of 
the Father before all worlds, that is of the substance of His 
Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not 
made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were 
-- made, both things in Heaven and things on earth ; who for us men 
and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate 
of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and 
was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was 
buried ; and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 
and ascended into Heaven; and sitteth on the right hand of the 
Father ; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick 
and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. 

** And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life, who 
proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son 
together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. 
And in one Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one 
Baptism for the remission of sins, We look for the Resurrection of 
the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen. 

** And those who say there was a time when He was not, or 
that He was made out of nothing, or from some other substance 
or essence, or say that the Son of God is liable to flux or change, 
those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”’ 

This Creed Epiphanius speaks of as handed down from the 
Apostles, and received in the Church, having been set forth by 
more than 310 Bishops (the number at Nice being 318).1 

It has also been observed that Cyril of Jerusalem, who died 
A.D. 886, and delivered his Catechetical Lectures early in his life, 
in the eighteenth lecture repeats the following Articles, as part of 
the Creed: —‘‘In one Baptism of repentance for the remission of 
sins, and in one Holy Catholic Church ; and in the Resurrection 
of the flesh; and in eternal Life.” 2 

We must infer then, either that a larger, as well as a shorter 
Creed was put forth at Nice, such as Epiphanius has recorded, or 
that such a longer form had existed of old time, and that the 


1 Epiphanius, Zn Anchorato, juxta finem ; 2 Cyril, Catech. xvu11. 
Suicer, s. v. σύμβολον ; Bingham, Bk. x. 
ch. rv. § 15. 

29 


226 OF THE THREE CREEDS. (Arr. VIIL 


Council only specified those parts which bore particularly on the 
controversy of the day ; or, lastly, that shortly after the Council of 
Nice the Nicene fathers, or some of them, or others who had high 
authority, enlarged and amplified the Nicene symbol, and that 
this enlarged form obtained extensively in the Church.? 

The Council of Constantinople met a. Ὁ, 381, consisting of 150 
fathers. Their principal object was to condemn the Macedonian — 
heresy, which denied the Deity of the Spirit of God. They 
accordingly put forth an enlarged edition of the Creed of the 
Council of Nice. It agreed almost word for word with the Creed 
of Epiphanius, the only omission being of the following clauses, 
“that is of the substance of His Father,” and * both things in 
Heaven and things in earth ;” which were already fully expressed 
in other words. 

The chief clauses contained in this Creed, which do not occur in 
the Creed as put forth by the Council of Nice, are as follows : — 

«ς Begotten of the Father before all worlds,” ““ By the Holy Ghost 
of the Virgin Mary,” ‘ Was crucified also for us under Pontius 
Pilate, and was buried,” ‘ Sitteth on the right hand of the Father,” 
*¢ Whose kingdom shall have no end;” and all those clauses which 
follow the words “" We believe in the Holy Ghost.” 

The most important of these expressions is “the Lord, and 
Giver of life’ (τὸ Κύριον καὶ τὸ ζωοποιὸν). The Arians spoke of 
Him as a creature. The Macedonians called Him a ministering 
spirit. In opposition to these, in the Creed of Constantinople, 
after an expression of belief in the Holy Spirit τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον 
is added τὸ Κύριον, “* the Lord.”? This was in allusion to 2 Cor. 
iii. 17, 18, where the Spirit is spoken of as the Lord (ὦ. ὁ. JEHo- 
VAH) ; and is called “* The Lord the Spirit ;”? and therefore in 
this Creed He is called τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Κύριον, “the Spirit, which is 
the Lorn.” ὃ 

It is unnecessary to repeat here what was said in the History of 
the fifth Article, concerning the famous addition of the Filiogue ; 
which was the chief cause of the schism of the Eastern and West- 
ern Churches. 

The Creed of Constantinople was solemnly confirmed by the 
third general Council, the Council of Ephesus, a. p. 431; whose 
seventh Canon decrees that ‘*No one shall be permitted to intro- 
duce, write, or compose any other faith, besides that which was 


1 See Suicer and Bingham, as above. 8 See Wall, On Infant Baptism, τι. p 
3 ὁ δὲ Κύριος τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐστιν, and ἀπὸ 
Κυρίου Πνεύματος. 


Sxc. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 227 - 


defined by the holy fathers assembled in the city of Nice with the 
Holy Ghost.” ἢ 

It is said that the first to introduce the Constantinopolitan 
Creed into the Liturgy was Peter Fullo, Patriarch of Antioch, 
about the year 471; and that he ordered it to be repeated in every 
assembly of the Church.? It is further said, that Timotheus, 
Bishop of Constantinople, first brought the same custom into the 
__ Church of Constantinople, about a. Ὁ. 511.8 From the East the 
custom passed into the Western Churches, and was first adopted 
in Spain by the Council of Toledo, about a. p. 589, when that 
Church was newly recovered from an inundation of Arianism. 
The Roman Church appears to have been the last to receive it, as 
some say, not before a. Ὁ. 1014; though others have assigned, with 
probability, an earlier date.* 





Szecrion IV.— THE CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. 


I. pats original of this, as of the Apostles’ Creed, is obscure, 

In former times, many learned men believed it to have been 
composed by Athanasius, when he was at Rome, and offered by 
him to Pope Julius, as a confession of his faith. This was the | 
opinion of Baronius, and in it he was followed by Cardinal Bona, 
Petavius, Bellarmine, Rivet, and many others of both the Roman 
and the reformed communions.6 The first who entered critically 
into an examination of the question of its authorship, was Gerard 
Vossius, in his work De Tribus Symbolis, a. Ὁ. 1642; who threw 
strong doubts on the received opinion, having given good reason ᾿ 
to believe that this Creed was the work, not of Athanasius, but οὗ 
some Latin writer, probably much posterior to Athanasius. Indeed 
he did not set it higher than a. p. 600. He was followed by Arch- 
bishop Usher, who in his tract De Symbolis (a. Ὁ. 1647) produced 
new evidence, of which Vossius was ignorant, agreed with him in 
denying it to Athanasius, but scrupled not to assign it a date prior 
to the year 447. 


1 Beveridge, Synodicon, 1. p. 108; 1v.§7; Palmer’s Origines Liturgice, m. | 
Routh’s Opuscula, 11. p. 392. ” ch. tv. § 6. pvtionehains ‘i 
2 Πέτρον φησὶ τὸν κναφέα ἐπινοῆσαι .... % Theodor. Lector. p. 563; Bingham 


καὶ ἐν πάσῃ συνάξει τὸ σύμβολον AeyéoSa:— and Palmer, as above. 
Theodor. Lector. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 11. p. “4 Bingham and Palmer, as above. 
656, Paris, 1673; Bingham, Bk. x. ch. ὃ Bingham, Bk. x. ch. αν. ὶ 18. 


228 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Arr. VIL 


Tn the year 1675, Paschasius Quesnel, a learned French divine, 
published the works of Pope Leo, with some dissertations of his 
own. In the fourteenth of these, he discusses the authorship of 
this Creed, and assigns it to Vigilius Tapsensis, an African Bishop, 
who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the 
Arian persecution by the Vandals. His arguments have so pre- 
vailed as to carry a majority of learned writers with him ; amongst 
whom may be mentioned, Cave, Dupin, Pagi, Natalis Alexander, 
Bingham. 

The principal arguments against the authorship of Athanasius, 
and in favour of Vigilius, are thus summed up by the last: men- 
tioned writer, Bingham.’ First, because this Creed is wanting in 
almost all the MSS. of Athanasius’ works. Secondly, because the 
style and contexture of it does not bespeak a Greek, but a Latin 
author. Thirdly, because neither Cyril of Alexandria, nor the 
Council of Ephesus, nor Pope Leo, nor the Council of Chalcedon, 
have even so much as mentioned it in all they say against the 
Nestorian or Eutychian heresies. Fourthly, because this Vigilius 
is known to have published several others of his writings under the 
borrowed name of Athanasius, with which this Creed is commonly 
joined.” 2 

In 1693, Joseph Antelmi, a learned divine of Paris, in his Dis- 
sertatio de Symbolo Athanasiano, attacked with great success the 
opinion of Quesnel, and ascribed the Creed to Vincentius Lirinen- 
sis, who flourished in Gaul, a. Ὁ. 434. 

His arguments appear to have produced considerable effect on 
the learned world. The famous Tillemont (1697) commends the 
performance of Antelmi, though still inclining to Quesnel’s opin- 
ion. Montfaucon (1698) is convinced that the Creed is not the 
work of Athanasius nor Vigilius, nor is he convinced that it is 
due to Vincentius ; but thinks there is great reason to conclude, 
that it was the work of a Gallican writer or writers, about the 
time of Vincentius. In like manner, Muratori, a famous Italian 
writer (1698), commends the opinion of Antelmi, as nearest to 
the truth.® 

Lastly, our learned Dr. Waterland, in his valuable History of 
the Athanasian Creed, having given an account of the opinions of 
his predecessors, brings many strong arguments to prove that the 
writer was Hilary, who became Bishop of Arles, a. Ὁ. 429, and 
that he, in all probability, put forth this creed, when he first entered 
his diocese. 


1 Bingham, as above ; Waterland, Hist. δ Ibid. 
Athanasian Creed, ch. 1. 8 Waterland, as above. 


Sxo. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 229 


The arguments, by which the time and place in which this 
Creed was written have been pretty certainly arrived at, may be 
classed under two heads: 1 External; 2 Internal Proofs. 

1. External Proofs are as follows: — 

(1) We have ancient testimonies as early as the 
Council of Autun, a. p. 670, where this Creed is en- 
joined to be recited by the clergy. After this, Regino, Abbot of 
Prom in Germany, A. ἢ. 760. The Council of Frankfort, a. Ὁ. 
794. Theodulph, Bishop of Orleans, a. p. 809. Hincmar, Arch- 
bishop of Rheims, a. Ὁ. 852, &. 

(2) There is an ancient commentary, as early as A. 
Ὁ. 570, by Venantius Fortunatus, an Italian, who became 
Bishop of Poictiers. Afterwards commentaries by Hincmar, 
Bishop of Rheims, a. ἢ. 852; Bruno, Bishop of Warzburgh in 
Germany, A. D. 1033; the famous Abelard, 1120, &e. 

(3) There are MSS. as early as the seventh century, 
and one was found in the Cotton Library by Archbishop 
Usher, as early as A. ἢ. 600; though this has since disappeared. 
This is a very early date, considering how few MSS., even of the 
most ancient writers, are much earlier. 

(4) There are French versions of the year 850; 
German, 870; Anglo-Saxon, 930; Greek, 1200, &e. 

(5) The reception of this Creed may be shown to 
have been in Gaul, as early as a. Ὁ. 550; Spain, 630; 
Germany, 787; England, 800 ; Italy, 880; Rome, 980. 

From these considerations we trace the Creed to the middle of 
the sixth century, when it appears to have been well known, com- 
mented on, and treated with great respect ; and that more especially 
in the churches of Gaul. 

2. The Internal Evidences are these :— 

Not before (1) It was clearly written after the rise of the Apol- 
a. D. 370. Jinarian heresy; for the Creed is full, clear, and minute 
in obviating all the cavils of that heresy concerning the incarnation 
of Christ.1_ This heresy arose about a. Ὁ. 360, and grew 
to a head about a. p. 370. Epiphanius marks the time 
when Creeds began to be enlarged in opposition to Apollinarianism, 
namely, A. Ὁ. 818,2 about which year Athanasius died. 

Not before (2) The Creed appears to have adopted several of St. 
Α. Ὁ. 416. Augustine’s expressions and modes of reasoning. Now 


1 It will be remembered that the Apol- place of the rational soul. See August, 
linarians denied a human soul to Christ, Heres. 49. Tom. virt. p. 19. 
and said that the Godhead supplied the ε ΡΙΡΟΔΝΝΝ Anchorat. c. 121, ap. Wa 
terland. 


A. D. 670. 


A. D. 570. 


A. D. 600. 


A. D. 850. 


A. D. 550. 


A. ἢ. 370. 


230 : OF THE THREE CREEDS. (Arr. VILL 


he wrote his books on the Trinity about a. Ὁ. 416. Especially this 
Creed contains the famous Filioque ; and Augustine was the first 
who brought the doctrine of the Procession from the Son promi- 
nently forward ; whence he has been charged by the Greeks with 
being the father of that doctrine. This would make it probable 
that the Creed was not written much before a. p. 420. 

Before (3) It appears, however, to have been written before 
A.D. 451. the rise of the Eutychians ; for there is not a word plainly 
expressing the two natures of Christ, and excluding one nature ; 
which critical terms are rarely or never omitted in the Creeds after 
the Eutychian times. Nay, though this Creed does in effect op- 
pose this, as well as other heresies, there are expressions in it, 
which, it has been thought, might have been laid hold of by Euty- 
ches in his favour, and therefore would not have been written after 
his heresy had arisen ; e.g. “*One, not by conversion of the God- 
head into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.” This 
might have been perverted to prove the Eutychian dogma, that 
Christ’s manhood was converted into and absorbed in His God- 
head. Again, “" As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so 
God and man is one Christ.”” The Eutychians might have argued 
from this clause, that, as body and soul make up the one nature of 
man, so God and man in Christ made one nature also. 

Hence it is concluded that this Creed was written before the 
Council of Chalcedon, where Eutyches was condemned, a. Ὁ. 451. 

Dalen (4) It was probably before the spread of the Nes- 
4-pD.431. torian heresy. It is certain that this Creed does not 
condemn Nestorianism in the full, direct, and critical terms which 
Catholics made use of against that heresy. There is nothing 
about the Deipara in it, or about one Son only in opposition to 
two Sons, or about God being born, or suffering and dying. 
But such terms ever occur in Creeds drawn up, or writings directed 
against Nestorianism. And though terms occur in it which may 
be held to condemn both Eutychianism and Nestorianism, yet 
they are not stronger than were used by those who, before the 
rise of both these heresies, wrote against the Apollinarians, whose 
doctrine bore considerable resemblance in some points to that of 
Eutyches, and the maintainers of which often charged the Catholics 
with something very like the doctrine afterwards held by Nestorius. 
Hence, in the Apollinarian controversy, the fathers were often led 
to condemn, by anticipation, both Nestorius and Eutyches, If this 
reasoning be correct, the Athanasian Creed must have been written 
before the Council of Ephesus, where Nestorianism was condemned. 
A.D. 481. 


Sze. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 231 


Thus the internal evidence leads us to conclude, that the 
Athanasian Creed was, in all probability, composed between 
A. Ὁ. 420 and a. ». 431. 

As to the place where it was made, evidence tends to show 
that it was Gaul. 

(1) It seems to have been received first in Gaul. (2) It was 
held in great esteem by Gallican councils and bishops. (8) It was 
first admitted into the Gallican Psalter. (4) The oldest versions 
of it, commentaries on it, citations from it, and testimonies to it, 
are Gallican, or connected with Gaul. (5) The greatest number of 
the manuscripts of it, and those of greatest antiquity, are found in 
Gaul. 

From such arguments as these, it has been concluded, with the 
greatest probability, that this Creed was written in France, and at 
some time in the interval between a. Ὁ. 420 and 431.1 

The authorship of it then must be assigned to some person or 
persons, who flourished at this period in the church of Gaul. 

Now Vincentius Lirinensis and Hilary of Arles both were 
Gallican divines, and both flourished at the required time. 

Vincentius was a writer of great celebrity and judgment, and 
his works contained thoughts and expressions which bear a great 
similarity to the expressions in the Athanasian Creed. It is true 
his famous work, the Commonitorium, is assigned to the date 434, 
z. e. a few years later than the probable date of the Athanasian 
Creed ; but there seems no reason why he should not have written 
the Creed before the Commonitorium. 

On the other hand, it is argued by Dr. Waterland, that Hilary 
was a bishop, which Vincentius was not; and such a work appears 
much fitter for a bishop than for a private presbyter. He was 
made a bishop ἃ. Ὁ. 429, which falls exactly within the limits 
assigned for the date of the Creed ; and what more likely than that 
he should have set it forth when he entered on his diocese? He is 
spoken of as a man of great powers. His writings are said to have 
been small tracts, but extremely fine; and Honoratus of Marseilles, 
who wrote his Life, says that he wrote an excellent Hxposition of 
the Creed ; which is the proper title for the work in question, a 
work which was rarely called a Creed (Symbolum) by the ancients. 
Again, he was a great admirer of St. Augustine (in all but his 
views of predestination), whence we may account for the similarity 
of the expressions in this Creed to the language of that father. 
The resemblance, which is traced to the language of Vincentius, 


1 See Waterland, as above. 


232 OF THE THREE CREEDS. (Arr. VIII. 


may have resulted from the fact that Hilary and Vincentius were 
not only contemporaries, but had been inmates, about the same 
time, of the same monastery at Lerins; that so Vincentius might 
borrow expressions from Hilary, to whom he would be likely to 
look up with respect. Lastly, the style of this Creed answers 
well to what is told us of the style and character of Hilary. 

To conclude: whether we assign the Athanasian Creed to 
Hilary or Vincentius, or to both or neither of them, it was pretty 
certainly the work of some Gallican writer in the beginning of the 
fifth century. It was very probably called Athanasian because it 
clearly expressed the doctrines which Athanasius so ably defended ; 
and because, when Arianism was rife in Gaul, as it was soon after 
the publication of this Creed, the Arians very probably called the 
Catholics Athanasians, and the Creed, which especially and most 
fully expressed their doctrines, the Athanasian Creed. 

II. The particular value of this Creed consists in this, that 
it guards the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation against 
the various heretical subtilties by which it has been explained 
away: and although it may be argued that most of these heresies 
are ancient, and therefore out of date, it is far from being true 
that they may never recur. Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollina- 
rianism, against which it seems chiefly to have been directed, have 
all been revived in late times; even Nestorian and Eutychian 
doctrines, which the Creed, as it were, anticipates and condemns, 
have been more or less’ approved in our days. And although 
none of these errors were openly professed, yet the loose way in 
which many modern writers on Theology often express themselves 
requires to be restrained by something like the Creed in question, 
which, by its accurate language, is calculated to produce accuracy 
of thought. 

Even then, if some people may think the damnatory clauses, as 
they are called, unduly strong, yet the occurrence of one or two 
strong expressions should not so far weigh with us as to induce us 
to wish the removal of this confession of our faith from the formu- 
laries of the Church. It is, in the main, unquestionably true, that 
he who, having the means of learning the truth of Christ, shall 
yet reject and disbelieve it, shall on that account be condemned. 
It is probable that the damnatory clauses in the Creed of Athana- 
sius mean no more than the words of our Lord, ‘* He that believeth 
not shall be damned ” (Mark xvi. 16). What allowance is to be 
made for involuntary ignorance, prejudice, or other infirmities, is 


1 See Waterland’s History of the Athanasian Creed; Works, tv. 


Sec. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 233 


one of those secret things which belong only to the Lord our God ; 
concerning which we may hope, but cannot pronounce. ‘The Gos- 
pel declares that unbelief in the truth shall be a cause of condemna- 
tion; and the Church is therefore justified in saying the same. 
The extreme earnestness and, as to some it seems, harshness, with 
which the Creed expresses it, resulted from the imminent danger, 
at the time it was composed, from the most noxious heresy, and the 
need there was to hedge round the faith of the Church, as it were, 
with thorns and briers. If we think such language unnecessarily 
severe, still we must remember that nothing human is free from 
some mark of human infirmity, and should be slow to doubt the 
value of a Catholic exposition of the Faith, because one or two 
expressions seem unsuited to modern phraseology. 

The meaning and importance of the different clauses will be 
best appreciated by observing what errors they respectively op- 
posed. Thus, let us begin with ver. 4: “ Neither confounding the 
Persons, nor dividing the Substance.” The Patripassians and 
Sabellians confounded the Persons; the Arians divided the Sub- 
stance of the Godhead. After this, the next 14 verses, down to 
“yet not three Lords, but one Lord,” seem principally designed to 
oppose the Arian heresy, which denied the homo-ousion. Accord- 
ingly they declare that in the Holy Trinity there are Three, with 
a distinction of Person, but with an Unity of Substance or Essence ; 
so that, though it is lawful to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit, 
are distinct Persons, and that each Person is Lord, God, Almighty, 
uncreated, and incomprehensible, yet it is not lawful to say that 
there are three Gods, three Lords, three Almighties, three Uncre- 
ated, or three Incomprehensibles.! 

The 19th verse concludes this portion of the Creed, in the words, 
“For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowl- 
edge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we 
forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods or 
three Lords.” Now the former part of this clause has been sup- 
posed by some to speak, so that we might infer from it, that any one 
Person in the Trinity, by Himself, would constitute the whole God- 
head. This, however, is far from being the real or natural sense 
of the passage. The meaning is this: Each Person-in the Trinity 
is essentially God. And we must not view God as we would a 
material being, as though the Godhead could be divided into three 


1 The original of the word “incompre- ent. See Waterland, Hist. of Ath. Cr. Ch, 
hensible” is “‘immensus,” 7. 6. ἄπειρος, x.; Works, tv. p. 385. 
boundless, immeasurable, or omnipres- 


234 OF THE THREE CREEDS. (Arr. VILL 


different parts, which three united together made up one whole, and 
so imagine that the Father alone was not God, but required to have 
the Son and the Spirit added to Him in order to make up the God- 
head. No! The spiritual unity of the three Blessed Persons in 
the Trinity is far closer, more intimate, and more real, than that 
unity by which parts make up a whole. Each by Himself, or con- 
sidered alone, must be confessed to be God; and yet all make not 
up three Gods, but are One in Essence, and therefore but one 
God. 

The next four verses are opposed to those who confounded the 
Persons of the Godhead, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
not only one God, but one Person. And they state the relations 
of the Son to the Father, and of the Holy Ghost to both of 
them. 

The 23d verse runs thus: “50 there is one Father, not three 
Fathers: One Son, not three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not three 
Holy Ghosts.”” It may be asked here, of what use is this clause ? 
Did any heretics ever teach that there were three Fathers, or 
three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts? The answer is, Those who as- 
serted that there were three unoriginated principles (τρεῖς évapxor), 
were considered to teach virtually that there were three Fathers, 
or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts, or a Trinity of Trinities. 
Thus one of the Apostolical Canons is directed against presbyters, 
who should baptize “in three unoriginated principles, or in three 
Sons, or in three Paracletes, or in three Holy Ghosts.”” The Coun- 
cil of Bracara denounces those who shall say, ‘‘ as the Gnosties and 
Priscillianists, that there is a Trinity of Trinities.’ And Pope 
Vigilius decrees, that, if any “ baptize in one Person of the Trinity, 
or in two, or in three Fathers, or in three Sons, or in three Com- 
forters,”’ he should be cast out of the Church.! 

The Creed from verse 27 treats of the Incarnation, and excludes 
the various heretical opinions on this subject. 

Some denied that Christ was God, as the Ebionites, Arians, &c. 
Others denied that He was Man; as the Gnostics, the Apollinarians, 
and afterwards the Eutychians. Especially the Apollinarians de- 
nied that He was perfect man, having both a reasonable soul and 
human flesh besides His Godhead, ver. 30. 

Again, the Apollinarians charged the Catholics with saying that 
Christ was two, since they assigned Him a human soul as well as 
a Divine Spirit. Therefore the Creed adds, that, “ though He be 
God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ,” —a clause which 

1 Bingham, Z. A. Bk. x1. ch. 111. § 4. 


Src. IV.) OF THE THREE CREEDS. 235 


afterwards was suitable to oppose the Nestorians, who held that 
there were two Persons united in Christ, ver. 32. 

Once more, the Apollinarians made the Godhead of Christ. act 
the part of a soul to His Manhood; which was virtually converting 
the Godhead into flesh! The true doctrine is, not that God was 
changed into man, but that the Word of God took human nature 
into union with His Godhead. Therefore the Creed says, “" One, 
not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, bee by taking of the 
Manhood into God,” ver. 33. 

Again, the Apollinarians made a “ confusion of substance” in 
Christ, for they confounded His Godhead and His Manhood ; as the 
Eutychians did afterwards, inasmuch as they made His Godhead act 
the part of His human soul. Therefore says the Creed “ One alto- 
gether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person,” 7. 6. 
by uniting both natures in one Person, ver. 84. And this is fur- 
ther explained, that, as in the ordinary man there are two different 
substances, body and soul, united in one, so in Christ two different 
natures, God and Man, are intimately united, yet not confounded 
together, ver. 35: “ As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so 
God and Man is one Christ.” 

Thus the principal clauses of the Creed are drawn up, to obviate 
the principal errors on the two chief doctrines of the Christian faith. 
If such errors had never arisen, the accurate language of the Creed 
would have been useless. But when dangers have been shown to 
exist, opposition to them seems inevitably forced upon the Church. 
Peace is infinitely to be desired, but it is better to contend for the 
faith than to lose it. 


THE THREE CREEDS IN THEIR ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. 
1. Symbolum Apostolorum. 


Πιστεύω εἰς τὸν Θεὸν ἸΠατέρα παντοκράτορα ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, καὶ 
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν. τὸν συλληφθέντα 
ἐκ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου, γεννηθέντα ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, παθόντα ἐπὶ ἸΤοντίον 
Πιλάτου, σταυρωθέντα, θανόντα, καὶ ταφέντα, κατελθόντα εἰς ἄδου, τῇ τρίτῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, καθεζόμενον ἐν 
δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς παντοδυνάμου, ἐκεῖθεν ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. 
Πιστεύω εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἁγίων κοινωνίαν, 
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, ζωὴν αἰώνιον. ᾿Αμήν. 


1 Contentiosissime affirmantes, Ver- quid in carnem fuisse conversum atque 
bum carnem factum, hoc est, Verbi ali- mutatum. — Augustin. Heres. 55. 


ee eee ee. δ. ΣΝ δ ee ee ee a Se «0 εὐὭἸλιυω eos, 





2360 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Arr. VILL 


2. Symbolum Constantinopol. 


Πιστεύομεν els ἕνα Θεὸν, Ἰ]ατέρα παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, 
ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων. Kai εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν Ὑἱὸν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἸΠατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων’ φῶς 
ἐκ φῶτος, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ. γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοού- 
σιον τῷ ἸΠατρί: δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τὸν δ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ διὰ 
τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Τίνεύ- 
ματος ἁγίου, καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα' σταυρωθέντα τε 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου ἸΤιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ταφέντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ 
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς: καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, καὶ καθεζόμενον 
ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δοξῆς κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ ve 
κρούς: οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ 
Κύριον, καὶ τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ 
Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον, καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. 
Eis μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν" ὁμολογοῦμεν ἕν βαπτίσμα 
els ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν, καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος 
αἰῶνος. ᾿Αμήν. 


8. Fides Sancti Athanasii. 


1. Quicunque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat 
Catholicam Fidem. ! 

2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque 
dubio in eternum peribit. 

8. Fides autem Catholica hee est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate, 
et Trinitatem in Unitate veneremur : 

4. Neque confundentes Personas, neque Substantiam sepa- 
rantes. 

5. Alia est enim Persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti. 

6. Sed Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, una est Divinitas, 
equalis Gloria, cozterna Majestas. 

7. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spiritus Sanctus. 

8. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus et Spiritus 
Sanctus. 

9. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus et Spiritus 
Sanctus. 

10. Aternus Pater, zternus Filius, eternus et Spiritus Sanctus.. 

11. Et tamen non tres eterni, sed unus sternus. 

12. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus incre- 
atus, et unus immensus. 

18. Similiter, Omnipotens Pater, Omnipotens Filius, Omnipotens 
et Spiritus Sanctus. 


Sec. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 237 


14. Et tamen non tres Omnipotentes, sed unus Omnipotens. 

15. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et Spiritus Sanctus. 

16. Et tamen non tres Dii, sed unus est Deus. 

17. Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus et Spiritus 
Sanctus. 

18. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus. 

19. Quia sicut singillatim unamquamque Personam et Deum et 
Dominum confiteri Christiana veritate compellimur ; ita tres Deos 
aut Dominos dicere Catholica religione prohibemur. 

20. Pater a nullo est factus, nec creatus, nec genitus. 

21. Filius a Patre solo est, non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. 

22. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus, nec creatus, 
nec genitus est, sed procedens. 

23. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres; unus Filius, non tres 
Filii; unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. 

24. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil majus aut 
minus, sed tote tres Persone coztern sibi sunt, et cozquales. 

25. Ita ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et Unitas in 
Trinitate, et Trinitas in Unitate veneranda sit. 

26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. 

27. Sed necessarium est ad zternam Salutem, ut Incarnationem 
quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat. 

28. Est ergo Fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quia 
Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus pariter et Homo 
est. 

29. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante secula genitus: Homo, 
ex substantia Matris in seculo natus. 

80. Perfectus Deus, perfectus Homo ex anima rationali et hu- 
mana carne subsistens. 

31. Aqualis Patri secundum Divinitatem: minor Patre se- 
cundum Humanitatem. 

32. Qui licet Deus sit et Homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est 
Christus. 

33. Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem, sed 
assumptione Humanitatis in Deum. 

34. Unus omnino, non confusione Substantiz, sed unitate Per- 
sone. 

35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est Homo; ita 
Deus et Homo unus est Christus. 

36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad inferos, tertia 
die resurrexit a mortuis. 


238 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Arr. VILL 


37. Adscendit ad ceelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris; inde ven- 
turus judicare vivos et mortuos. 

38. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum 
corporibus suis, et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. 

39. Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in vitam sternam, qui vero mala, 
in ignem eternum. 

40. Haze est Fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter, firmi- 
terque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. 


ARTICLE IX. 


----- 


Of Original, or Birth-Sin. 


Οπισιναι, Sin standeth not in the fol- 
lowing of Adam (as the Pelagians do 
. Vainly talk), but it is the fault and cor- 
ruption of the nature of every man, that 
naturally is engendered of the offspring 
of Adam, whereby man is very far gone 
from original righteousness, and is of his 
own nature inclined to evil, so that the 
flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, 
and therefore, in every person born into 
this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and 
damnation. And this infection of nature 
doth remain, yea, in them that are re- 
generated ; whereby the lust of the flesh, 
called in Greek φρόνημα σαρκὸς, which 
some do expound the wisdom, some sen- 
suality, some the affection, some the de- 
sire of the flesh, is not subject to the law 
of God. And although there is no con- 
demnation for them that believé and are 
baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess 
that concupiscence and lust hath of itself 
the nature of sin. 


De Peccato Originali. 


Pecoatoum originale non est (ut fabu- 
lantur Pelagiani) in imitatione Adami si- 
tum, sed est vitium, et depravatio nature, 
cujuslibet hominis, ex Adamo naturaliter 
propagati: qua fit, ut ab originali justi- 
tia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua 
natura propendeat, et caro semper adver- 
sus spiritum concupiscat, unde in unoquo- 
que nascentium, iram Dei, atque damna- 
tionem meretur. Manet etiam in renatis 
hee nature depravatio. Qua fit, ut af- 
fectus carnis, Grace φρόνημα σαρκὸς (quod 
alii sapientiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, 
alii studium carnis interpretantur) legi 
Dei non subjiciatur et quanquam renatis 
et credentibus, nulla propter Christum 
est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese 
rationem habere concupiscentiam, fate- 
tur Apostolus. 





Srecrion I. — HISTORY. 


ΤῊΣ origin of evil in the world has, from very early times, been 
a subject of speculation among philosophers and. divines. 
What the Jewish opinions on the question may have been, is not 


easy to decide. 


The rite of circumcision, as administered to in- 


— ————E——————=— ee 


fants, may have been understood as showing that infants were 
born in sin, and had need of the circumcision of the Spirit, to 
make them partakers of the promises of God. The custom among 
the Jews to baptize (as well as to circumcise) all proselytes, 
whether men, women, or children, may seem to indicate that they 
looked on all, even from their birth, as naturally unclean, and need- 
ing a laver or cleansing, before admission to the privileges of their 
Church. 


Beer the account of this custom at length in Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, 


240 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 


That the early fathers of the Christian Church held the univer- 
sality of human corruption, there can be but little question. A 
history of infant baptism is also a history of the doctrine of original 
sin, baptism being for the remission of sin.’ If there were no origi- 
nal sin, infants could have no need to be baptized. Hence Wall, 
in his History of Baptism, has brought together, with great labour 
and fidelity, passages from the earliest writers, showing their belief 
in the original infection of our nature from Adam. It is not to be 
expected that the fathers would speak as clearly on this point be- 
fore, as after the rise of Pelagianism. But a fair inspection of the 
passages thus cited will convince us that the doctrine was held, al- 
most as clearly as is expressed in our own Article, from the very 
earliest times of the Church.” 

For examples of the language of the fathers we may take the 
following passages: ‘‘ Besides the evil,” says Tertullian,* “ which 
the soul contracts from the intervention of the wicked spirit, there 
is an antecedent, and, in a certain sense, natural evil arising from 
its corrupt origin. For, as we have already observed, the corrup- 
tion of our nature is another nature, having its proper god ora 
father, namely, the author of that corruption.” 

Cyprian, and the council of sixty-six bishops with him (a. Ὁ. 258), 
in their Epistle to Fidus, use the following words: “ If then the 
greatest offenders, and they that have grievously sinned against 
God before, have, when they afterwards come to believe, forgive- 
ness of sins, and no person is kept off from baptism and this grace, 
_ how much less reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being newly 
born, has no sin save that, being descended from Adam according 
to the flesh, he has from his very birth contracted the contagion of 
the death anciently threatened ; who comes for this reason more 
easily to receive forgiveness of sins, because they are not his own 
but other’s sins that are forgiven him ?”’ 4 


(Arr. IX 


1Mark i. 4. Acts xxii. 16. 

2 See especially the quotations from 
Clem. Rom. 1. Ph 47, 48; Justin Mar- 
tyr, pp. 64, 68; ertullian, p. 95; Ori- 
gen, p. 121; Cyprian, . 182. Compare 

ishop Kaye’s Justin arlyr, p. 75; Ter- 
tullian, Ὁ. 825. 

® Malum igitur anime, preter quod ex 
obventu Spiritus nequam superstruitur, 
ex originis vitio antecedit, naturale quo- 
dammodo. Nam, ut diximus, nature 
corruptio alia natura est, habens suum 
Deum et patrem, ipsum scilicet corrup- 
tionis auctorem. — De Anima, c. 41; Bp. 
Kaye, p. 326. Sce also ἐν μα Ita om- 

"τα alee eousque in Adam censetur, 


donec in Christo recenseatur; tamdiu 
immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. 

* Porro autem si etiam gravissimis de- 
lictoribus, et in Deum multum ante 
cantibus, cum postea crediderint, remissa 
peccatorum datur, et a baptismo atque a 
gratia nemo prohibetur ; quanto magis 
prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens 
natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod, secundum 
Adam carnaliter natus, contagium mortis 
antique prima nativitate contraxit? qui 
ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam 
hoc ipso facilius accedit, quod illi remit- 
— non propria, sed aliena peccata. 

= Go Epist. 64 ad Fidum, Wall, 


Le eS ee eee oe 


— es CO en ΡΥΥ * ~~ ΎΨψι-- 


Szc. I.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 941 


On this, however, as on other articles of faith, there arose here- 
sies from very early times. In the second century, about a. ἢ. 180, 
Florinus, a presbyter of the Church of Rome, taught that God was 
the author of evil. This man had been a friend of Irenzeus, and a 
disciple of Polycarp’s. A fragment of a letter from Irenzus ad- 
dressed to him, in which Irenzeus combats his peculiar error, is pre- 
served by Eusebius.!. The Marcionites had, before this, taught the 
doctrine of two principles, the one of good and the other of evil; 
and it has been thought probable that it was in opposition to this 
that Florinus fell into the opposite heresy, and that, in maintaining 
the sole sovereignty of God, he was led to make Him the author 
of sin.? : 

The Gnostic heretics in general attributed the origin of sin to 
matter, which they considered as essentially evil. Colorbasus, we 
are told,? and Priscillian held, that men’s actions were influenced 
by the stars.* The Manichees, like the Marcionites before them, but 
more systematically, taught the eternal existence of two opposite 
and antagonistic principles, to the one of which they attributed the 
origin of evil.® 

The great Origen, though using freely those passages of Scrip- 
ture, which speak of man’s natural corruption, and of his being 
born in sin,® yet, from his peculiar theory of the preéxistence of 
human souls, could scarcely hold that man’s sinfulness was derived 
from the first sin of Adam. His theory was, that all souls of men 
have existed in a former state and are confined in bodies, and 
placed in circumstances according to their conduct in that former 
state ; and that the bodies, which they now have, are more or less 
gross according to the qualities of their former crimes.’ 


ΠΡ ee ee ee Ὗ σειν.  * — 


1 Eusebius, H. E. v. 20. See Heylyn, 
Historia Quinquarticularis, ch. 1.; Bea- 
ven’s freneus, p. 24; also Augustin. 
Heres. 66, ‘Pom. viit. p. 21. 

2 Lardner’s Hist. of Heretics, ch. x. § x. 
Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, ch. vit. 

ὃ Augustin. De Hares. 15. 

4 Augustin. De Heres. 70; Adstruunt 
étiam fatalibus stellis homines colligatos. 

5 See Mosheim, Cent. 111. Pt. 11. ch. v. 
The Manichees are said to have taught 
that “sin was a substance.” And Sa- 
turninus and the Manichees are said to 
have taught that sin was in man “‘a na- 
tura, non a culpa,” which accounts for 
the language of the fathers against them, 
e. g. Theodoret, Dial, 1.: ἡ ἁμαρτία οὐκ 
ἔστι τῆς φύσεως ἀλλὰ τῆς κακῆς προαιρέσεως. 
See Suicer, 1. p. 208. The Manichees 
’ did not consider sin to lie in a deprava- 
tion of the whole natural actions and 


31 


thoughts of man, but in an evil constitu- 
tion of a portion of his nature, which they 
traced to that principle whom they con- 
sidered as the creator of all the evil in 
the universe. 

® See, for example, the passage quoted 
by Wall, 1. p. 121. 

7™See Dupin, Leccles. Hist. Cent. 111. 
Art. Origen. See also a good, though 
popular, account of Origen’s opinions in 
the Biography of the Early Church, by the 
Rev. R. W. Evans. 

Origen has very generally been charged 
with semi-Pelagianism, and with being 
the forerunner of the Pelagian heretics. 
It is very difficult to judge clearly and 
impartially about his opinions. A variety 
of causes tend to obscure them. It is, 
however, certain that. at times he speaks 
most clearly of all men being born in sin, 
and needing purification. For example, 


242 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 

In the beginning of the fifth century, a very important heresy 
sprang up, which called forth more decidedly the sentiments of the 
Church on this doctrine. Pelagius was a monk residing at Rome, 
but of British extraction, his name, in his own country, being proba- 
bly Morgan. Ccelestius, another monk, a native of Ireland, and 
Julianus, a bishop, were his chief allies. His heresy was spread 
abroad about a. p. 410, the year that Rome was taken by the 
Goths. Cclestius, having endeavored to take priest’s orders at 
Carthage, was accused by Paulinus, a deacon of that Church, of 
holding several false opinions. About the same time, St. Augustine 
wrote his first treatise against the same errors. ΄ Pelagius had re- 
tired into Palestine, whither Augustine sent Orosius, a Spanish pres- 
byter, to accuse him before a synod of bishops at Jerusalem. Here, 
and at Diospolis, he was acquitted without censure. But in the 
year 416, two Councils, one at Carthage and another at Milevis, 
condemned the Pelagian opinions. Innocent, bishop of Rome, 
was written to by the Councils, and agreed in their decision. 
But in the year 417 he was succeeded by Zosimus, who, gained 
over by the ambiguous confession of the Pelagians, and being him- 
self a great admirer of Origen, pronounced in their favour. Augus- 
tine, however, with the African bishops, persevered in their oppo- 
sition ; and Zosimus, yielding to their representations, changed his 
mind and condemned with great severity Pelagius and Ceelestius. 
They were again finally condemned at the third general council at 
Ephesus, which met to consider the tenets of Nestorius. 

The doctrines charged against Ceelestius at the Council of Car- 
thage (A. p. 412) were — 

“ That Adam was created mortal, and would have died, whether 
he had sinned or not. That the sin of Adam hurt only himself, 
and not all mankind. That infants new born are in the same state 
that Adam was before his fall. That a man may be without sin, 
and keep God’s commandments, if he will.” ? 


(Arr. IX. 


Augustine could not speak more plainly 
than the following : — 

Quod si placet audire quid etiam alii 
sancti de ista nativitate senserint, audi 
David dicentem: /n iniquitatibus, inquit, 
conceptus sum et in peccatis peperit me mater 
mea: ostendens quod quecumque anima 
in carne nascitur, iniquitatis et peccati 
sorde polluitur: et propterea dictum esse 
illud quod jam superius memoravimus, 
quia nemo mundus a sorde, nec si unius diet 
sit vita ejus. Addi his etiam potest, ut 
requiratur quid cause sit, cum baptisma 
Ecclesie pro remissione peccatorum de- 
tur, secundum Ecclesia observantiam 


etiam parvulis baptismum dari; cum 
utique si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad 
remissionem deberet et indulgentiam 
pertinere, gratia baptismi superflua vi- 
deretur. — Origen. Homil. in Levitie. vit. 


num. 8. 

1 See the history of Pelagius and le- 
lagianism given by Wall, Hist. of /nfant 
Baptism, τ. ch. x1x.; Mosheim, Cent. v. 
Pt. τι. ch. v.; Neander, rv. pp. 299-862. 
Also the History of Pelagianism given in 
the Preface to the tenth volume of the 
Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s 
works. 

2 Wall, τ. p. 357. 


Bre. 17 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 248 


Pelagius himself sent a creed to Innocent, in which he avoids a 
clear statement concerning original sin, but distinctly asserts, that, 
though we all need the help of God, we can all keep God’s laws, 
if we will. The principal apponents of Pelagius were Augustine, 
Jerome, and Fulgentius.! 

The controversies thus called forth were not soon allayed. A new 
sect soon arose from the former one, called Semi-Pelagians, whose 
opinions concerning original sin were not so objectionable as those 
of Pelagius, but who ascribed far too much to the unassisted 
strength of the human will.? 

The sentiments of Pelagius found considerable favour in his 
native island of Britain, and caused many and grievous troubles 
to the Church there. Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, 
bishop of Troyes, were sent over to Britain by the Gallican Church, 
to confute the growing heresy, and had great success, if we may 
credit ancient accounts, in opposing both the temporal and spirit- 
ual enemies of the Church. The famous Dewi, or St. David, was 
afterwards greatly distinguished for the zeal and ability with which 
he opposed the prevailing error and aided in its overthrow. Espe- 
cially at the Council of Llanddewi Brefi in Cardiganshire, his elo- 
quence and arguments are said to have availed to the silencing of 
his adversaries, and the establishing of his own celebrity. He was 
hereupon unanimously erected primate, the aged Dyvrig (Dubri- 
tius) resigning in his favour ; and he afterwards called another synod 
at Caerleon, where his exertions were rewarded by the extermina- 
tion of the heresy.* 

The schoolmen, in the Middle Ages, as might have been expected, 
debated much concerning the subject of original sin. Original 
Righteousness they seem to have considered something superadded 
to the original nature of man, not a part of that nature. Accord- 
ing to Luther’s statement of their opinions, it was “‘ an ornament 
added to man, as a wreath upon a maiden’s hair is an ornament 
bestowed on her, and not a part of herself.”’® Original sin, there- 
fore, was the loss or privation of original righteousness, and man 


1 The Pelagians endeavoured to prove 
that some of the ancient fathers, espe- 
cially of the Greek Church, used their 
language, and denied the existence of 
sin in infants. Augustine, in his treatise 
contra Julianum, shows, in opposition to 
that heretic, that St. Chrysostom (whom 
Julian had cited in favour of Pelagian- 
ism) had in reality plainly expressed the 
doctrine of original sin. — Aug. Contra 
Julianum, Lib. 1. cap. v1. Vol. x. p. 509. 
Wall, τ. p. 416. 


2 See below, under Article X. 
ὃ Bede, Hist. Lib. 1. cap. XVII.-xx11. 


Stillingfleet’s Orig. Britan. ch. 1v. Col- 


lier’s Kecl. Hist. Book τ. 

* Gildas Cambrensis. Rees’s Welsh 
Saints, p. 198. Usher, Brit. Eccl. Antig. 
c. v. xiii. Williams’s Antig. of the Cymry, 
pp. 184, 287. 

5 Luther, Op. vi. p. 38, ap. Laurence 
Bampton Lectures, p. 56 


oe —?. ΎΎ ΨῸ 


244 


was an object of God’s displeasure, not as possessing what was 
offensive to God, but as wanting in that which was pleasing to Him. 
The body was infected by the fall, whether from the poison of the 
forbidden fruit, or from whatever cause; but the soul suffered 
only as deprived of that which Adam possessed, the presence of 
God and supernatural righteousness, and as having the imputation 
of sin derived from Adam.' The infection of the body was indeed 
Somes peccati, a fuel which might be kindled into sin; but the soul 
contracted guilt from imputation of Adam’s guilt, not sin from the 
inheritance of Adam’s sin, though deprived of primitive righteous- 
ness, a quality dependent on the presence and indwelling of God. 
St. Augustine had doubted whether the soul as well as the body 
was derived from the parents, and so contracted sin from them. 
But the schoolmen, deciding that the soul came direct from God, 
of necessity were led to deny a direct derivation of sin to the soul, 
confining its pollution to the body, which then infects the soul ; 
and so they made the defect of the soul to consist in an absence of 
good, rather than in presence and dominion of evil.? 

In the Council of Trent there was much discussion of the doc- 
trine of the fathers and schoolmen on this article; after which the 
following decrees were finally determined on: (1) That Adam by 
transgressing lost holiness and justice, incurred the wrath of God, 
death, thraldom to the devil, and was infected both in soul and 
body. (2) That Adam derived to his posterity death of body, 
and sin of soul. (3) That sin, transmitted by generation, not by 
imitation, can be abolished by no remedy but the death of Christ, 
and that the merit of Christ is applied to children in baptism, as 
well as to adults. (4) That newly-born children ought to be bap- 
tized, as having contracted sin from Adam. (5) That by the 
grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted, and that all 
is removed which hath the true and proper nature of sin. And 
though the concupiscence remaining is called by the Apostlé sin, 


OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. (Arr. IX 


Spirit was forfeited, and primeval inno- 


1 See Laurence, Serm. 111, pp. 56-59, 
cence lost at the same time. See this 


and note 2, p. 252. 

The fathers appear, almost with one 
consent, to have held that original right- 
eousness consisted both of natural inno- 
cence and of the grace of God vouch- 
safed to Adam. The one was lost simul- 
ay, with the other. Indeed, the 
one could not exist without the other. 
Original righteousness, therefore, ac- 
cording to the primitive teaching, was 
not only defect of sin, but also the . 
ence of God’s Spirit. At the fall, ’s 


proved, with his usual learning and 
clearness of reasoning, by γι Bull, 
Works, 11. Disc. v. Oxf. 1827. Bp. Bull 
gives strong reasons for believing this to 
be both the universal belief of the prim- 
itive Church and the doctrine of the 
sacred Scriptures themselves. 

2 Sarpi, Council of Trent, p. 163. Ne- 
ander, vill. pp. 184-198, gives a very 
interesting account of the scholastic dis 
cussions on Original Sin. 


Src. I.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 245 


the Synod declared that it was not true and proper sin, but was so 
termed because it ariseth from sin and inclineth to it.! 

The point on which these decrees differed from the Ninth Arti- 
cle of our Church, is in the entire cancelling of original sin in 
baptism. According to the Scholastic definition, that original sin 
consisted in the deprivation of original righteousness, the Council 
of Trent determined, that in baptism the soul was restored pure 
into the state of innocency, though the punishments which follow 
sin be not removed. This all the fathers expounded by saying 
that the perfection of Adam consisted in an infused quality, which 
adorned the soul, made it perfect and acceptable to God, and ex- 
empted the body from mortality. And God, for the merit of 
Christ, giveth unto those that are regenerated by baptism another 
quality called justifying grace, which, wiping out every blemish in 
the soul, maketh it pure, as was that of Adam; yea, in some it 
worketh greater effects than original’ righteousness, but only it 
worketh no effect on the body, whereby mortality and other natural 
defects are not removed.” 

The Lutherans in this respect differed materially from the 
fathers of the Council ; especially in maintaining that concupiscence 
had the nature of sin, and that the infection, though not the impu- 
tation of sin, remained in the baptized and regenerate.® 

The second article of the Augsburg Confession, which is the 
principal confession of faith of the Lutheran divines, is evidently 
the source from which our own ninth Article was derived. With- 

out defining the nature of original righteousness,‘ or the mode in 
which Adam lost it, it declares the doctrine, that every man born 
naturally from Adam is born in sin, without the faith and fear 
of God, and with concupiscence, which disease is truly sin and 


1 Concupiscentiam LEcclesiam  nun- 
quam intellexisse peccatum appellari, 
quod vere et proprie in renatis peccatum 
sit, sed quia ex peccato est, et ad pecca- 
tum inclinat. — Concil. Trident. Sess. v. 
Sec. 5. See Anathemas in the fifth Ses- 
sion, Sarpi, p. 173. 

A great dispute arose between the 
Dominicans and Franciscans, the latter 
insisting that the Virgin Mary should be 
declared free from the taint of original 
sin, —the Dominicans maintaining the 
contrary opinion. (Sarpi, p. 168.) The 
Council in the end declared, that it did 
not mean to comprehend the B. Virgin 
in the decree (p. 178). Augustine had 
before professed himself unwilling to dis- 
cuss the question of the Virgin’s sinful- 


ness, or how far grace might have over- 
come sin in her, out of reverence to our 
Lord. (See Wall, Znfant Baptism, 1. p. 
404.) 

2 Sarpi, p. 166. 

8 Ideo sic respondemus ; in baptismo 
tolli peccatum quod ad reatum seu im- 
putationem attinet, sed manere morbum 
ipsum, &c.— Melancthon. Loc. Theology. 
p. 122, ap. Laurence, p. 258. 

*The Saxon confession, however, 
clearly speaks of original righteousness | 
as something beyond mere innocency, 
calling it—in ipsa natura hominum ον τὴ 
conversio voluntatis ad deum..... 
fuisset homo templum Dei, &e. τς ὀρὸς 
Confessionum, p. 246. 


246 


deserving of damnation, in all who are not born again by baptism 
and the Spirit.1 

Calvin, speaking of original sin, says that ‘* As the spiritual life 
of Adam consisted in union with his Maker, so alienation from 
Him was the death of his soul. When the heavenly image was 
obliterated in him, he did not alone sustain the punishment, but 
involved all his posterity in it. The impurity of the parents is so 
transmitted to the children that none are excepted; and that, not 
by imitation, but by propagation.’’. . . “ Original sin appears to 
be an hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused 
through all parts of the soul, which first makes men subject to 
God’s wrath, and then brings forth works in us which Scripture 
calls the works of the flesh.”. . . ‘* His destruction is to be ascribed 
only to man, as he obtained uprightness from God’s mercy, and by 
his own folly fell into vanity.”. . . “ His sin did not spring from 
nature, but was an adventitious quality which happened to man, 
rather than a substantial propriety which from the first was created 
in him.,”’4 

Among Calvinistic divines in general there has been a difference 
concerning the first introduction of sin, chiefly as to whether Adam 
fell freely or by predestination of God: the sublapsarian Calvinists 
holding that Adam sinned of his own free will; the supralapsarians 
holding that God decreed that he should fall. 

The chief point of difference between the two great parties 
which so long divided the Protestant Churches, the Calvinists and 
Arminians, was on the extent of the vitiation of our nature by the 
fall. The Calvinists taught that the corruption of man was so 
great that no spark of moral goodness was left in him; that he 
was utterly and totally bad and depraved ; that, however amiable 
he might be in regard to his fellow-men, yet as regards God and 
godliness there was no relic of what he once was, any more than 
in lost spirits and damned souls. The Arminians rejected this 
strong view of the subject, and, admitting the great corruption of 
man’s heart and intellect, still maintained that some remains of 


OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. (Arr. IX 


111, De Peccato Originis. 

Item docent, quod post lapsum Adz 
omnes homines, secundum naturam prop- 
agati, nascantur cum peccato, hoc est 
sine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum, 
et cum concupiscentia, quodque hic mor- 
bus, seu vitium originis vere sit pecca- 
tum, damnans et afferens nune quoque 
seternam mortem his qui non renascun- 
tur per baptismum et Spiritum Sanc- 
tum. 


Damnant Pelagianos, et alios, qui vi- 
tium originis negant esse peccatum, et 
ut extenuent gloriam meriti et benefici- 
orum Christi, disputant hominem pro- 
priis viribus rationis coram Deo justifi- 
cari posse. —Con/ession of Augsburg. Com- 
pare the Saxon Confession, Art. De Pee- 
eato Originis. 

2 Calvin, Jnst. Lib. 1. cap. 1, 5, 6, 8, 
—tII. 


Sxc. 1] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 94 


his original condition might be traced in him; that his mind and 
will were indeed depraved and incapable of making any independent 
effort towards true godliness; but that he still differed materially 
from evil spirits or the spirits of the damned, having a natural con- 
science, and an appreciation of what is good and of good report. 

The Calvinists have generally insisted much on the imputation 
of Adam’s sin to all his posterity, as the true meaning of original 
sin; though admitting that such imputation was accompanied with 
actual depravity in the heart of each individual.!_ Calvin himself 
seems rather to have held that all men were liable to condem- 
nation, because of their own sinfulness derived from Adam, not 
because of the imputation of Adam’s sin.? 

At the time of the Reformation, the Anabaptists appear to have 
adopted Pelagian opinions. The article on Original Sin, in the 
first draught of it as set forth in 1552, begins thus: “ Original sin 
standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly 
talk, which also the Anabaptists do now-a-days renew.” Their 
rejection of infant baptism was of a piece, and naturally connected, 
with their denial of original sin. ; 

In later times, the Socinians held on this subject thoroughly 
Pelagian language, and generally denied the corruption of human 
nature and the need of grace to turn men to godliness. ° 

As regards the Church of England, there have been many 
attempts, on the one hand, to show that she used the language of 
the later Calvinists, on the other, to prove that she symbolized 
with the Arminians. The Articles were drawn up before the great 
Calvinistic controversy had arisen, and therefore do not use the 
terms of that controversy. It is pretty certain that, in this, and 
some of the following Articles, the English reformers symbolized 
with Melancthon and the Lutheran divines, whose very words in 
the Confession of Augsburg, or the Wirtemberg Confession, are 
frequently adopted in the wording of the Articles.’ 

There is nothing said in the Ninth Article on the imputation 
of Adam’s guilt, though that was a favourite subject of scholastic 
discussion, nor of the question, whether original righteousness 
meant merely primitive innocence, or consisted moreover in a pre- 
ternatural gift, and in the indwelling and presence of God. The 


1 See, for example, Edwards, On Origi- alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio sunt obstricti 
nal Sin, Part 1v. ch. 111.— an able and —Caly. Jnst. Lib. 11. cap. 1, Sect. 8; 
judicious exposition of the Calvinistic Laurence, B. Z. Serm. 111. note 8, p. 261. 
view of this doctrine. 8 See Laurence, B. ZL. notes to Serm 

3 Atque ideo infantes quoque ipsi,dum 11.) especially notes 8 and 11. 
suam secum damnationem afferunt, non 


248 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Arr. IX. 


statements are quite general; yet sufficiently guarding the truth 
that every man naturally engendered of Adam brings into the 
world a nature inclined to evil, and very far removed from the 
original righteousness of our first parents ; that this sinfulness of 
_ his nature deserves the wrath of God ; and that, although the con- 
demnation due to it is remitted to all who believe and are bap- 
tized, still even in the regenerate the infection, showing itself in 
the way of concupiscence, remains, and has of itself the nature 
of sin. 
The homily ‘On the Misery of Man,” composed, or at least 
_ approved by Cranmer, breathes the same spirit. The homily on 
the Nativity, in the second book of homilies, drawn up some time 
later, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, may be referred to as 
expressing the doctrine of original sin in somewhat stronger 
language ; the divines of Elizabeth’s reign having been brought 
into more intimate connection with the Calvinistic reformers, and 


sympathizing more with them, than was the case with the divines 
of the reign of Edward VI. 





Sxcrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


N considering the Scriptural proof of the doctrine of original sin 

here, it will be better to confine ourselves strictly to the state- 
ments of the Article, avoiding as much as possible those discus- 
sions which the Article itself avoids; neither entering into the 
distinctions of the schoolmen, nor the disputes of the Calvinists, 
but resting satisfied with the plain practical ground, which our own 
reformers thought broad and deep enough. 

The Article then may be said to embrace the five following 
propositions : — 

I. Original sin is the fault and corruption of our nature, which 
infects all men. 

II. It is not derived by imitation, but inherited by birth. 

III. Its extent is such that by it man is very far (quam lon- 
gissime) gone from original righteousness. 

IV. It deserves God’s wrath and condemnation. ' 

V. Its infection is not entirely removed by baptism, but that 
infection remains even in.the renati ; and though there is no con- 


See. Π.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 249 


demnation to them that believe and are baptized, yet still lust or 
concupiscence has the nature of sin. 


I. That “ original sin is the fault and corruption of our nature, 
which infects all men,”’ might be inferred from our general knowl- 
edge of mankind, and of the evil tempers even of childhood, if 
we had no express revelation of it. 

In the earliest part of the Scripture history the Almighty declared, 
that ‘the imagination of man’s heart was evil from his youth” 
(Gen. viii. 21). Job attributed man’s weakness and sorrows to the 
fact that what was clean could not be brought from what was 
unclean (Job xiv. 4). David, acknowledging his own sin from his 
youth, confessed that he was ‘shapen in iniquity, and that in sin 
did his mother conceive him” (Ps. li. 5). Solomon declared that 
‘there was not a just man on earth, that did good and sinned not” 
(Eccles. vii. 20). And Isaiah, in foretelling the sacrifice of Christ, 
gives as the reason for it, that ‘* All we like sheep have gone astray ; 
we have turned every one to his own way ”’ (lili. 6. See also Gen. 
vi. 5-12. Job. xv. 16. Psalm xiv. 2, 3; lviii. 3; cvi. 6, &e. 
Prov. xxii. 15. Jer. xvii. 5, 9.) 

These and similar passages, even before the coming of the Gos- 
pel, sufficiently showed that there was an evil coextensive with our 
race and coeval with our birth, from which none were exempt, and 
which went with us from the cradle to the grave. 

There are many passages in the Gospels which show that the 
same doctrine pervades them ; as our Lord’s declaration that “ there 
is none good but One, that is God” (Matt. xix. 17); His commit- 
ting Himself to no man, ‘for He knew what was in man ’’(John ii. 
24, 25); His declaration that no one could enter into the Kingdom 
of God, “‘ except he were born again of water and of the Spirit” 
(John iii. 8, 5, 6); nay, His institution of baptism, which all who 
would be saved must receive, showing that there was an unclean- 
ness of nature, which needed to be washed away by grace. 

But, of course, the writings of the Apostles, as being the more 
doctrinal portions of Scripture, treat most systematically on the 
subject. The whole of the earlier part of the Epistle to the 
Romans more especially treats of the sinfulness of man, which 
needs the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle shows in the first chap- 
ter, that the Gentiles, notwithstanding the light of nature —the 
natural conscience which God had given them ; and in the second 
chapter, that the Jews, although to them had been committed the 


oracles of God, had yet all been condemned by their own acts and 
32 


250 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. (Arr. IX. 


by their own Law. In the third chapter, he concludes that all are 
under sin (Rom. iii. 9), that “ all have sinned and come short of the 
glory of God” (Rom. iii. 23). In the fifth chapter, he shows that, 
from the time of Adam, ‘death had passed upon all men, for that 
all have sinned” (ver. 12). In the seventh chapter throughout, 
he describes the natural man moved by the dictates of conscience 
to approve what is good, and yet constrained by a law in his mem- 
bers — the law of sin and death working in him — to follow what is 
evil. He then considers the same natural man instructed by the 
revealed Law of God, consenting to the Law that it was good, and 
yet unable to fulfil it, because of the sin that dwelleth in him, and 
that binds him down to do what is base: so that he even represents 
the Law as bringing death rather than life, as showing the good 
and the beautiful, as kindling some feelings of desire for better 
things, but still as giving no power to reach after them. And all 
this, which he so strikingly describes to us, he tells us results from 
this cause, namely, that in man, that is in his natural condition, there 
dwelleth no good. ‘I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwell- 
eth no good thing.”! In the eighth chapter, he shows how this 
defect of our nature is remedied; that, whereas man by himself 
could not please God, whereas the Law was too weak, owing to the 
infirmity of man’s sinful nature, yet God sent His Son to save, and 
His Spirit to sanctify ; and so those who are in the Spirit and no 
longer in the flesh, can fulfil the righteousness of the Law. But 
“ the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God,” and “ they who 
are in the flesh” (ὦ. ὁ. in a state of nature, and not under grace) 
*‘cannot please God,” Rom. viii. 8.2 Just similar is St. Paul’s 
language in his other Epistles; see, for example, Eph. iv. 22, 


1 Rom. vii. 18: “In my flesh,” of 
course means in. my natural and carnal 
state, according to the common Pauline 
antithesis of the flesh and the spirit. 
No doubt, many persons have thought 
that the Apostle in this chapter is speak- 
ing of his own struggles against sin still 
dwelling in him, when under the domin- 
ionof grace. But it has always appeared 
to me that the whole thread of the apos- 
tle’s argument is broken, and the whole 
force of his reasoning destroyed by this 
hypothesis. The fact that he uses the 
first person singular need not puzzle us 
foramoment. It is his common habit to 
speak in the first person, when he means 
to represent himself as the type of others, 
of the world at large, or of others situ- 
ated like himself. One sentence in the 
chapter, if it stood alone, would be 


enough to prove that the Apostle is not 
describing the state and conflict of a 
regenerate Christian. It is in v. 14: 
“ Tam earnal, sold under sin.” The re- 
deemed Christian, ‘‘ bought with a price,” 
and delivered “ from the bondage of cor- 
ruption, into the glorious liberty of the 
children of God,” can never truly be rep- 
resented as still “sold under sin.” Christ 
has made him free, ‘‘and he is free in- 
deed.” 

2 We must take care that by the ex- 
pression, “the Hesh,” in Rom. vii. viii. 
we do not suppose the Apostle to mean 
the body, the material part of our being. 
This would be the Manichean error. it 
is not the body only, but the whole man, 
that the Scriptures speak of as infected 
with sin. Com ohn iii. 6. Gal. v. 
19, 20. 1 Cor. iii. ὃ, 4. 


Sxc. IL] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-Stw. 251 


where he speaks of “the old man, which is corrupt according to 
deceitful lusts; ”’ Eph. ii. 1, and Col. ii, 18, where he speaks of 
men, before their conversion and baptism, as having been “ dead in 
trespasses and sin ;” Eph. ii. 3, where he speaks of both Jews and 
Gentiles as “‘ by nature children of wrath ;”’ Gal. iii. 22, where he 
says that ““ the Scripture hath concluded all under sin.” 

We can scarcely need fuller proof that the Scriptures describe 
all men naturally born into the world as subject to the disease of 
sin. 


II. We have next to prove, that “ Original sin is not derived 
from imitation, but inherited by birth.” 

In the third chapter of Genesis we have an account of the fall 
of Adam, and the consequent curse upon him, and the ground 
which he was to till. : f 

Now the old Testament speaks of the impossibility of ‘* bringing 
a clean thing out of an unclean” (Job xiv. 4), and asks, “" What is 
man, that he should be clean? Or he which is born of a woman, 
that he should be righteous?” (Job xv. 14). The Psalmist, as 
we have seen, traces his own corruption to the fact that he was 
“‘shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin” (Ps. li. 5). Such 
expressions imply that the sinfulness of parents passed to their chil- 
dren; and the universal taint which we have already seen to be 
existing, is traced to an inheritance derived from father to son. 

Such, we cannot doubt, is the meaning of our Lord, “ That 
which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (John iii. 6). He was teach- 
ing Nicodemus the need which every one had to be born again, — 
before he could see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus marvelled 
that a man should be born again. Our Lord explains that a spir- 
itual birth was needed. And why? Because “ that which was 
born of the flesh is flesh.” The flesh signifies the natural, carnal, 
unholy state of man, as contrasted with the holy, spiritual state of 
the redeemed and regenerate. Now our Lord declared that every 
man had need of a new birth, because “‘ that which was born of the 
flesh was flesh.”” Man inherited by birth the flesh, —a fleshly, an 
unspiritual, an unholy nature; therefore he needed a new birth, a 
birth of the Spirit, which should make -him spiritual, even as his 
former birth of the flesh had made him carnal. This surely suf- 
ficiently demonstrates that every man by nature was in a state of 
defect, and that, because he inherited defect by bith. He was born 
of parents who were carnal, and therefore he was carnal himself. 

Accordingly, St. Paul treats it as a well-known truth, that ‘in 


252 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Arr. Ix 


Adam all die ” (1 Cor. xv. 22). And in the Epistle to the Romans 
(v. 12) he tells us, that ‘by one man sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all 
have sinned ;’”’ that ‘‘ through the offence of one many are dead” 
(ver. 15) ; that “‘ by one man’s offence death reigned” (ver. 17) ; 
that “ by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to con- 
demnation” (ver. 18); that “by one man’s disobedience many 
were made sinners ” (ver. 19). 

It is true that the words thus cited might, if they stood alone, 
bear the .Pelagian interpretation, that Adam brought in sin by 
bringing in the first example of sin, and that his’ children sinned 
after him by imitation of him, not because they derived a sinful 
nature from him; and so judgment passed upon all men, ‘ because 
all had sinned,’”’ their own personal sins having caused their con- 
demnation. But St. Paul expressly guards against such an inter- 
pretation, by saying (ver. 14) that ‘death reigned from Adam to 
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of 
Adam’s transgression.” Death was the penalty, which all had paid, 
even before the Law of Moses came to give more fully the knowl- - 
edge of sin; and it had reigned not only in those whose pre- 
sumptuous wickedness resembled the sin of Adam, but even in 
those who had not sinned after that similitude,in infants and idiots, 
and such as only inherited the nature, without following the exam- 
ple of Adam. This doctrine corresponds with the doctrine of our 
Lord, “ That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” 

Accordingly, the Apostle, when speaking of human nature in 
general, calls it “ sinful flesh’ (Rom. viii. 8). Our Lord took our 
nature, such as it was derived from Adam, only He was “" without 
sin;”’ but because He took that nature, which was then universally 
corrupted, therefore St. Paul says, “" He was sent in the likeness 
of sinful flesh.” And with this. doctrine entirely corresponds all 
that the Apostles write of the corruption of men by nature, and of 
the change or new birth necessary for every man who is in Christ ; 
e.g. ““ The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
God” (1 Cor. ii. 15). “41 know that in me, that is in my flesh, 
dwelleth ho good thing” (Rom. vii. 18). ‘ They that are after the 
flesh do mind the things of the flesh” (Rom. viii. 5). ““ The carnal 
mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of 
God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh 
cannot please God” (Rom. viii. 7, 8). ‘ The flesh lusteth against 
the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh’ (Gal. v. 17). Again, 
“If any man be in Christ he is a new creature”’ (2 Cor. v. 17). 


Sec. ΠῚ OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 253 


And the sinfulness of our natural state is called “the old man:” 
and Christians are said to have “put off the old man, which is 
corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and to have put on the new 
man, which after God is created in righteousness and true _holi- 
ness’? (Eph. iv. 22-24). 

Now all this language appears to prove that sin is a corruption 
and disease, affecting not only individuals, but the whole of human 
nature, so that whosoever inherits human nature inherits it so dis- 
eased. It is “ the flesh,’’ a nature debased and defiled ; and what- 
‘ever is born of the flesh is flesh also. Adam, we find from the 
second chapter of Genesis, received from God a nature free from 
sin, and so not subject toshame. But he defiled it with sin, and 
it became at once subject to shame, and then subject to death. 
Accordingly, when he handed down that nature to his posterity, he 
could not hand it down pure as he had received it; he of necessity 
gave it to them as he had himself made it, stained with sin, liable 
to shame, having the seeds of mortality, and subject to condemna- 
tion. This view of the subject explains and satisfies the language 
of Scripture ; and no other view will. There have been popular 
illustrations of it, such as the comparison of the hereditary taints 
of disease and insanity, and other ways in which, in God’s provi- 
dence, the sins of the fathers are visited on the children. ‘There 
have been philosophical discussions concerning the oneness of 
human nature, interesting in themselves, but unsuited to our limits 
here We have already seen that there have been discussions as 
to whether the body only, or soul and body both, are derived from 
the parent, and so corrupted by his sins. Even this I have not 
fully entered into ; though it is plain that Scripture speaks of man, 
not man’s body only, as corrupted and condemned. ‘In Adam all 
die.” From Adam “all have sinned’ (Rom. v. 12). Sin is a fault 
of the soul, and therefore plainly both body and soul are tainted 
with corruption. 


III. We have next to consider the degree or extent of cor- 
ruption, thus naturally, inherited by all men. Does original sin 
totally corrupt all men, so that there is no spark of natural good- 
ness left? Or are there still relics of what man once was? still, 
though in wreck and ruin, some faint outline of his original state 
of purity ? 


1 See for example Hooker, Bk. v.; fully expanded by the realists among the 
Wilberforce, On the Incarnation, ch. 111. schoolmen. 
This was the view of St. Augustine, more 


eS a ee νυν.» — ἜΤ  ῸΌΥν » _  — 


254 


It has been contended that the words of our Article mean both 
of these sides of the alternative. Calvinists appeal to the words 
“quam longissime,” in the Latin Article, as proving that man’s 
defection from original righteousness was to the greatest extent 
possible, that is to say, total and entire. Their opponents argued 
that the convocation had translated these words by “ very far,” 
showing that it was intended only to express a great and serious 
defection of our race from godliness, not a -total destruction of 
moral sense and feeling. pat 

The Scriptures evidently represent natural sinfulness as very 
great. The Almighty, speaking of the race before the flood, said 
that ‘‘every imagination of his heart was only evil continually” 
(Gen. vi. 5). Yet this might apply only to that generation, which 
had become so wicked as to call for signal judgment and destruec- 
tion. But then, after the flood, once more God declares that ** He 
will not again curse the ground for man’s sake ; though? the imag- 
ination of his heart be only evil from his youth ” (Gen. viii. 21). 
This seems to be a more general proposition, indicating at least 
that man’s heart might prove as evil after the flood as it had done 
before. 

In the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite says that God “ put- 
teth no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not clean in His 
sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man which drink- 
eth iniquity like water” (Job xv. 16). We must not always con- 
sider the words of Job’s friends as of authority in matters of faith, 
since their judgment is afterwards condemned by God; and we 
must make allowance for the strong antithesis between God and 
man ; yet still the passage shows that toa pious man like Job it was 
an argument likely to be admitted, that man was so filthy as to 
“ drink iniquity like water.” 

In Jer. xvii. 9, we read, that “the heart is deceitful above all 
things and desperately wicked ; who can know it?” It is truly 
argued that “ desperately wicked” is an epithet stronger than the 


OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. (Arr. TX. 


1 “The Assembly of Divines,’’ in the 
year 1648, revised the first fifteen Arti- 
cles with the view of making them speak 
more clearly the language of Calvinism. 
The Ninth, according to their revision, 
was to have stood thus :— 

“ Original sin standeth not in the fol- 
lowing of Adam, as the Pelagians do 
vainly talk, but, together with his first sin 
imputed, it is the fault and corruption of 
the nature of every man that naturally is 
propagated from Adam; whereby man 
1s wholly deprived of original righteous- 


ness,” ἄς. And ending with ‘‘ the Apos- 
tle doth confess that concupiscence and 
lust is truly and properly sin.” — Neale’s 
Hist. of Puritans, v. Appendix, No. v11. 
London, Baynes, 1822. See also Lau- 
rence, B. L. Ρ. 196. 

’ the translation of the mar- 


“ον. The conjunction assigns the rea- 
son why God had cursed the earth, not 
why He would not curse it again. 


eee a ae 


Src. IL] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 255 


original warrants. The Hebrew word ws signifies rather danger- 
ously sick, and therefore feeble, and in a moral sense, corrupted and 
depraved. Yet still the passage shows that the heart of man, taken 
in the general, is so corrupted and depraved as to be eminently 
deceitful and hard to know. 

To these passages from the old Testament are added the words 
of St. Paul, “1 know that in me, that isin my flesh, dwelleth no 
good thing,” Rom. vii. 18 ; and then again, “ The carnal mind is 
enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither . 
indeed can be,” Rom. viii. 7. 

Such language undoubtedly proves the very great corruption of 
the human heart, so that we cannot hesitate to say with our 
Church, that by nature “‘ man is very far gone from original right- 
eousness.” He is described as “ dead in trespasses and sins,” and 
therefore we ought undoubtedly to maintain that his corruption is 
such as to prevent him from making any efforts to recover himself 
and turn by his own strength to calling upon God. This is the 
practical part of the doctrine, and our Church goes no farther. 

Those who would push the matter to its greatest length, con- 
tend that the passages above quoted show that the image of God, 
in which man was created, was utterly taken from him at the fall ; 
that he thenceforth had no trace of resemblance to what he once 
was; and, though they may not use language so strong, the nat- 
ural conclusion from that which they do use is, that in a moral 
point of view there is no distinction between fallen humanity and 
evil spirits. 

Those who differ with them argue that God’s image was in- 
deed defaced by sin, and so the effect and blessing of it lost. But 
that that image was quite gone they consider disproved by the 
declaration that “* whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed ; for in the image of God made He man” (Gen. ix. 
6), — by St. Paul’s statement, that the man “is the image and 
glory of God” (1 Cor. xi. 7), — by St. James’s reasoning, that it is 
inconsistent with the same mouth to bless God, and to ““ curse men, 
which are made after the similitude of God” (James iii. 9). All 
these passages, they say, refer to men since the fall, and therefore 
prove that, whatever effect the fall may have had, it cannot have 
wholly obliterated the image of the Almighty. 

‘They say farther, that when St. Paul says that “in him, that 
is in his flesh, dwelleth no good thing,” he yet adds, “that to will 
is present with him, but how to perform that which is good.he finds 
not” (Rom. vii. 18); and that he all along represents man as ap- 


— el ee 


256 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Arr. IX. 


proving of what is right, but unable to accomplish it, —as honoring 
. the law, but not fulfilling it, —as even “delighting in the law of 
God after the inward man,” but finding another law ruling in his 
members, ‘which brings him into captivity to the law of sin” 
(Rom. vii. 22, 23). Hence, though man is captivated and subdued 
by sin, there must be some relic of his former state to make him 
see and admire what is good, though unable to follow it; and so 
the Apostle speaks of all men as subject to the dictates of natural 
conscience (Rom. ii. 14, 15), and does not hesitate to reason with 
unregenerate heathens, of ‘ righteousness, temperance, and judg- 
ment to come” (Acts xxiv. 25). 

These and like expressions in Scripture, it is thought, are incon- 
sistent with the stronger language which some have used concern- 
ing human depravity ; although there is fully enough to show the 
universal and fearful corruption of our nature, and our utter ina- 
bility of ourselves to become righteous, or to move upwards tow- 
ards God and goodness. 


IV. We come next to consider the statement which is made 
in the Article, that original sin “‘in every person born into the 
world deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.” Dr. Hey thinks 
that the word ““ damnation” is not necessarily to be understood of 
condemnation to eternal death, but may be construed, according to 
the proper signification of the term, to mean merely condemnation 
of some kind or other. The language of the Article is undoubtedly 
guarded, and studiously avoids expressing anything which cannot 
be clearly proved from Scripture. It is possible, therefore, that 
this may have been its meaning. But in either sense of the word, 
we shall probably find fully sufficient support for the doctrine ex- 
pressed. 

The language of St. Paul already quoted, “in Adam all die” 
(1 Cor. xv. 22), “* By one man sin entered into the world, and 
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men; for that all have 
sinned ” (Rom. v. 12), shows that the woe denounced upon Adam, 
as the effect of his own sin, passed from him to his posterity, as the 
effect of that sinfulness which they inherited from him. Accord- 
ingly, the same Apostle calls all men ‘children of wrath’? (Ephes. 
ii. 3) ; and that we may be sure that this is true, not only of adults 
who have sinned wilfully, but even of infants, who have only in- 
herited a sinful nature, we find our Lord, when speaking of the 
importance of the souls of little children, and of the guardianship 
of angels over them, attributing the blessings of their condition to 


Sec. II.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 


257 


His having delivered them from their original state, which was that 
of those that are lost. ‘* For,” said He, “‘ the Son of Man came 
to seek and to save that which was lost” (Matt. xviii. 11). With 
this corresponds the before-cited passage of St. Paul: ‘ Death 
reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them that had not 
sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” 

We find therefore all men, even children, represented as “lost,” 
as “children of wrath,” as subject to, and under the reign of 
«ς death.” And this is said to have been brought in by the sin of 
one man, even Adam, and to have “ passed upon all men; for that 
all have sinned.” 

We cannot fail to infer, that, as Adam by sin became subject 
to wrath and death, 50 all men are subject to the same wrath and 
death, because, by having a nature in itself sinful, they are, even 
without the commission of actual sin, yet sinners before God, and 
esteemed as “ having sinned.” 

The death which Adam brought in is clearly (in Rom. v. and 
1 Cor. xv.) opposed to the life which Christ bestows. That life is 
spiritual; and we therefore reason that the death, which is anti- 
thetic to it, is spiritual too. The conclusion is, that every person 
born into the world has a sinful nature and a sinful heart, which, 
though it have not broken out in acts of sin, yet constitutes him a 
sinner, so that he may be said to “have sinned ;” and that, on this 
account, he is liable to death, whether by death be meant death of 
the body, or death of the soul. 

It appears to me that our Church takes this view of the sub- 
ject, and so follows closely on the teaching of St. Paul. She has 
said nothing concerning that hypothesis which was current among the 
schoolmen, and in general has prevailed amongst the followers of 
St. Augustine, that Adam’s sin was imputed to his posterity, and 
that, as Levi was esteemed to have paid tithes in Abraham, being 
“ἐ yet in the loins of his father” (Heb. vii. 9, 10), so all men are 
esteemed to have sinned in Adam, and thus have his act of disobe- 
dience imputed to them. The hypothesis is ingenious as explain- 
ing the language of the Apostle, but seems scarcely to correspond 
with his assertion that ‘* death passed upon all men for that all 


1 See Edwards, On Original Sin, Part Church, though perhaps for some igno- 


tv. ch. 111. Bp. Burnet, in stating the 
objections to this doctrine, gives this 
among the rest: ‘‘ It is no small prejudice 
against this opinion that it was so long 
before it first appeared in the Latin 
Church; that it was never received in 
the Greek ; and that even the Western 
33 


rant ages it received it, as it did every- 
thing else very implicitly, yet has been 
very much divided both about this, 
and many other opinions related to it, 
or arising out of it.” — Burnet on Art. 
Ix. 


258 


OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 


(Arr. IX. 


‘have sinned.” Tt may be said indeed that they are esteemed to 
have sinned. But the statement is simply that they ‘* have sinned.” 
And it is much easier to understand that a being of sinful disposi- 
tion should be considered as having done that to which his disposi- 
‘tion inevitably leads him, and which he has only left undone for 
lack of opportunity, than it is to suppose that he should be esteemed 
to have committed an act which was really committed by another, 
five thousand years before his birth. At all events, where our 


Church leaves it, let it rest. 


V. It remains only to show that the infection of original sin is 
‘not (as the Council of Trent ruled it) wholly removed by baptism, 
but that it remains even in the renati ; and, though there is no 
condemnation to them that believe and are baptized, yet the lust 
or concupiscence, which remains in all men, has the nature of sin. 

1. Let us first remark, that ** Thereeis no condemnation to them 


that believe and are baptized.” 


This is plain from our Lord’s 


words in His commission to His Apostles: ‘ He that believeth and 


is baptized shall be saved” (Mark xvi. 16). 


It is not less plain 


from the language of St. Peter, who, when asked by his hearers 
‘what they should do for salvation, replied, “* Repent, and be bap- 


tized "32 (Acts ii. 88). 


The questions which may arise concerning the baptism of young 
children, may properly be reserved for the Article which treats 


expressly of baptism. Here it 


is sufficient to observe that our 


Church, though not admitting that all taint of original sin is done 


away in baptism, yet holds that its condemnation is remitted. 


ςς It 


is certain,” she says, “by God’s word, that children which are 
baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly 


saved.” ὃ 


2. But, though we thus believe that the condemnation which 


1 The marginal translation of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ “in 
whom,” would much favour this hypoth- 
esis. But it needs proof that ἐφ᾽ ᾧ will 
bear such a rendering. Although Au- 

stine, taking the Latin mistranslation 
m quo, built on it something of the im- 
putation theory, he explains it very 
moderately, namely, that infants sinned 
in Adam, because the whole human race 
‘was then contained in Adam, and would 
inherit his sinful nature. Quoting Rom. 

ἐν, 12, he continues : — 

Unde nec illud liquide dici potest, quod 
“peceatum Ade etiam non santibus 
nocuit, cum Scriptura dicat, zn quo omnes 
peccaverunt. Nec sic dicuntur ἰδία aliena 


peccata, tamquam omnino ad parvulos 
non pertineant : si quidem in Adam tune 
peccaverunt, quando, in ejus natura illé 
insité vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhuc 
omnes illi unus fuerunt; sed dicuntur 
aliena, quia nondum ipsi agebant vitas 
proprias, sed quicquid erat in futura pro- 
pagine, vita unius hominis continebat. — 
De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, Lib. 
111. c. 7, Tom. x. p. 78. 

2 The same appears in express terms 
from Rom. viii. 1: “ There is no condem- 
nation to them that are in Christ Jesus.”’ 
Compare Gal. iii. 27. 

ὃ Rubric at the end of the Baptismal 
Service. 


Sxc, IL] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 259 


original sin deserves, is, for Christ’s' sake, remitted to all that. be- 
lieve and are baptized, and, in the case of infants dying before the 
commission of actual sin, is remitted on baptism alone ; still, we 
hold that the infection of that sin remains even in the renati. 
The word renati occurs twice in the Latin Article, and in the 
English Article it is translated first “‘ regenerated,” and secondly 
“baptized.” It will be seen hereafter on what principles the 
Church identifies “ baptized’ and ““ regenerated ;”’ it is sufficient 
for our purpose now to observe that both ideas are embraced in 
the word used here. i 

Now that the baptized and regenerate Christian is not free from 
the infection of original corruption, but has to fight against it, as an 
enemy still striving to keep him down, and, if possible, to destroy 
him, appears from the following considerations. 

St. James urges Christians not to be in a hurry to be teachers, 
and gives as a reason that in many things all Christians offend: 
“In many things we offend all” (James iii. 2). St. Paul; speak- 
ing of his own exertions in the service of the Church, says that it 
will not do for him, when working for others, to neglect himself, 
but on the contrary, says he, ‘I keep under my body, and bring 
it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached 
to others, I myself should be a castaway ” (1 Cor. ix. 27). He 
bids the Galatians, “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which 
are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; consid- 
ering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. vi. 1). To those 
who ‘are risen with Christ,” and whom he bids to ‘seek those 
things which are above,” he yet adds the warning to mortify their 
earthly members (that is, the members or characteristics of their 
old man), which he describes as “ fornication, uncleanness, inordi- 
nate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness;” and further 
bids them put off “ anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy commu- 
nication, lying,” as being suitable only to the old man which they 
had put off, and unfitted for the new man which they had put”on 
(Col. i. 1, 5, 8, 9). St. Peter, addressing the Church as “ new- 
born babes” in Christ (1 Pet. ii. 2), yet exhorts them (ver. 11), 
‘as pilgrims and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war 
against the soul.” 

Now all these passages, which clearly concern baptized and regen- 
erate Christians, prove this: that there is still left in them ἃ liability 
to sin; that without much care and anxiety all will fall into sin; 
and that even under all circumstances, all do “offend in many 


things.” Accordingly, St. John says of those whose “ fellowship 


EE — Ἢ ΨΥ 


260 


is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ,” that “ if they 
say that they have no sin, they deceive themselves, and the truth 
is not in them” (1 John i. 8). Can anything account for this 
universally applicable language, except the fact, as stated by our 
Church, that the infection of original sin-remains even in the re- 
generate or baptized ? 

8. Lastly, the Article asserts that ‘*concupiscence and lust hath 
the nature of sin.” 

The Council of Trent admitted the existence of lust and con- 
cupiscence in the regenerate, and admitted that such concupiscence 
arose from original sin, and tended to actual sin, but denied that it 
was sin in itself. The English Church is here at issue with the 
fathers of the Council. 

Her opinion on this point is defended by such passages as these : 
-ς Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, that ye should obey it in 
the lusts thereof’? (Rom. vi. 12), where the lusts of sin seem 
clearly to be spoken of as sinful. Again, Rom. vii. 7: “ I had not 
known sin but by the Law; for I had not known lust, except the 
Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.’’ Here lust and sin seem to 
be identified. Again, in Matt. v. (especially vv. 28, 29) our 
Lord speaks of the desire of sin as being itself sin. And in the 
passage quoted in the Article (Gal. v. 17), St. Paul says that 
*¢ the flesh lusteth against the Spirit.” Now we can hardly under- 
stand how the lusts of the natural man should be opposed to the 
Spirit of God, and yet be sinless. We conclude, therefore, that 
‘lust and concupiscence hath of itself the nature of sin.” ? 


OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. (Arr. IX 


1 The connection between /ust and sin 
is very apparent in the Hebrew language, 
which derives many of its usages from its 


to desire. So in Hebrew, mn is (1) de- 


sire, as in Prov. x. 8, mp | man FAT 
‘He withholdeth the desire ‘of the wick- 


theology. Thus ; my signifies both desire 
ee 
and wickedness. In Arabic so” is Vasta 


cupiditas, Amor intensissimus, from s* 


ed.” (2) wickedness, as Ps. v. 10, >397 
=) Pt “ Their inward part is very wick- 


= edness.” Where the plural form gives in- 


tensity. 


ARTICLE X. 


--.-φῷ..... 


Of Free Will. 


Tue condition of man, after the fall 
of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn 
and prepare himself by his own natural 
strength and good works to faith, and 
calling upon God; wherefore. we have 
no power to do good works, pleasant and 
acceptable to God, without the grace of 
God by Christ preventing us, that we 
may have a good will, and working with 
us,! when we have that good will.? 


De Libero Arbitrio. 


Ea est hominis post lapsum Adz con- 
ditio, ut sese naturalibus suis viribus et 
bonis operibus, ad fidem et invocationem 
Dei convertere ac preparare non possit. 
Quare absque gratia Dei (que per Chris- 
tum est) nos preveniente, ut velimus, et 
cooperante dum volumus, ad _ pietatis 
opera facienda, que Deo grata sunt et 
accepta, nihil valemus. 





Section I.— HISTORY. 


| ing Article on Free Will naturally follows that concerning 

Original Sin ; and much which was said on the latter subject 
may be applicable to the explication of the former. 

The sentiments of the Apostolical Fathers on Free Will are 


probably nowhere very distinctly expressed. Their writings are 
rather practical than controversial ; and hence these topics are not 
very likely to be discussed in Aicrh: That they fully and plainly 
teach the weakness of man, and the necessity of Divine grace, 


cannot be questioned. 


The opinions of Justin Martyr are more clearly and definitely 
put forth in his extant works than are those of the Apostolical 


Fathers. 


1 This is the reading of the copy of the 
Articles as set forth in 1571. In 1562 the 
words run “ working in us,” and such 
was the reading in 1552. 

2 The Article, as it stood in 1552, be- 
gan with the words, “ We have no power.” 
The former part was prefixed in 1562 by 
Abp. Parker, having been taken from 
the Wirtemburg Confession, the words 
of which are: — 

Quod autem nonnulli affirmant homini 
post lapsum tantam animi integritatem 
relictam, ut possit sese, naturalibus suis 


In answer to objections which the Jews urged against 


viribus et bonis operibus, ad fidem et in- 
vocationem Deiconvertere ac preparare, 
haud obscure pugnat cum Apostolica 
doctrina et cum vero Ecclesize Catholi- 
cz consensu. 

The latter part, which constituted the 
whole of the original Article, has adopted 
the language of St. Augustine : — 

Sine illo vel operante ut velimus, vel 
cooperante cum volumus, ad bone pie- 
tatis opera nihil valemus.— De Gratia 
et Libero Arbitrio, cap. 17. See Abp. 
Laurence, 8. Z. pp. 101, 235. 


262 OF FREE WILL. 


the scheme of Christian doctrine, namely, that according to it there 
was an inevitable necessity that Christ should suffer, and therefore 
a necessity and constraint laid upon the Jews to crucify Him, 
Justin denies that God’s foreknowledge of wicked actions made 
Him the author of those actions. He puts no restraint upon men’s 
wills, but foretells certain evil ‘actions, not because He causes, but - 
simply because He foresees them. In like manner, in the first 
Apology, which was addressed to heathens, he explains that our 
belief in the predictions of the Prophets does not oblige us to 
believe that things take place according to fate ; for, if men acted 
‘under a fatal necessity, one could not be praised nor another 
blamed.?” And in the second Apology he maintains, in opposition 
to the Stoics, who believed in an inevitable fate (καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην 
“ἀνάγκην πάντα γίνεσθαι), that it is the nature of all men to have 
‘a capacity for virtue and vice ; for unless there were a power of 
turning to either, there could be nothing praiseworthy.* Yet, 
with such a belief in the freedom of human choice, Justin fully 
maintained the necessity of Divine grace, and the impossibility of 
attaining salvation without the light and aid of God’s Spirit.* 

In the earliest ages the Gnostic and other heretics held, to a 
great extent, the doctrines of material fatalism. We have already 
‘seen that some of the Gnostics considered actions as influenced by 
‘the stars. We have seen also, that Florinus taught that God was 
the Author of evil, and that Ireneus, who had formerly been his 
friend, wrote against him. Against such statements Irenzeus con- 
stantly maintained human freedom, and denied that the will was a 
‘mere machine acted on by good or evil principles, and itself passive 
under them. But the necessity of the grace of God’s Holy Spirit 
he as strongly expressed, when occasion required.® 

The Marcionites maintained that the universe was governed by 
two independent principles, one of good, and the other of evil. 
This naturally led to the belief’ in a physical restraint on the will 
of the creature. Accordingly, Tertullian, in disputing against 


[Argr. X 


5 See History of the Ninth Article. 


1 Dial. cum Tryphone, Opera, p. 290. 
6 #. g. Sicut arida terra, si non per- 


% Apol. 1. Opera, p. 80. 


8 Apol. 11. Opera, p. 48. 
ει. 4 KH. ἡ. "Ext Θεὸν τὸν πάντα ποιήσαντα 
ἐλπίζειν δεῖ πώντας, καὶ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου μόνου 
σωτηρίαν καὶ βοηϑείαν ζητεῖν " ἀλλὰ μὴ, ὡς 
'λοιποὺς τῶν ἀνϑρώπων, διὰ γένος ἢ πλοῦτον 
ἡ ἰσχὺν ἢ σοφίαν νομίζειν δύνασϑαι σώζεσϑαι. 
= Dial. c. Tryph. Opp. p. 829. 
‘Concerning Justin Martyr’s opinions on 
free will, consult Bp. Kaye’s Justin Mar- 

» Ρ. 75, ch. 11. ; Faber’s Primitive 

ne of Election, Bk. 1. ch. xt. 


cipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et 
nos, aridum lignum existentes primum, 
nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine su- 
prema voluntaria pluvia.— Adv. Her. 
111. 19. 

Concerning the opinions of Irenmus 
on free will, see Faber as above, and 
arene Account of Ireneus, th. XI. p 


Sec. 1.} OF FREE WILL. 263: 


them, strenuously contends that freedom of the will was given to 
Adam.! From the same father we learn that Valentinus taught 
that man was created of three different kinds, — spiritual, animal, 

and terrestrial ; the first sort as Sethythe second as Abel, the third 
as Cain; and that, as the distinction was from birth, it was conse- 
quently immutable. The first kind were destined to certain salva- 
tion, the last to certain perdition, the lot of the second was uncer- 
tain, depending on their greater inclination on the one hand to the 
spiritual, on the other to the carnal.? 

The fathers, who were contemporary with these heretics, were 
naturally led, in disputing against them, to use strong language on 
the freedom of the will; so that it is no wonder if, after the rise of 
Pelagius, his followers were ready to quote some of the ancients in’ 
defence of their errors. 

Origen was one of those who opposed the Marcionite and 
Valentinian heresies ; and his peculiar system of theology specially 
led him to more than ordinarily strong assertions of the freedom of 
the will. He took up the Platonic notion of the preéxistence of 
souls. The state of all created beings he believed to be regulated 
by their former actions. All souls were created free. Every 
rational creature was made capable of good or of evil. Angels and 
devils were alike created capable of holiness or of wickedness. The 
devil and his ministers fell by abuse of freedom; the holy angels 
stood by a right use of it.2 Every reasoning being is capable of 
degenerating or of improvement, according as he follows or resists 
reason. Men have been placed in different positions in this world 3, 
but it is because of their conduct in a former existence. Jacob was 
beloved of God more than Esau, because in the former life he had 
lived more holily.4 And, as good or evil are substantially in none 
but the Holy Trinity, but all holiness is in creatures only as an‘ 
accident, it follows that it isin us and in our own wills to be holy, or 
through sloth and negligence to decline from holiness to wickedness 
and perdition.® Holitiess is attained or lost, much as music or 
mathematics. No man becomes a mathematician or a musician 
but by labour and study, and,if he becomes idle and negligent, he 
will forget what he has learnt, and cease to be skilful in his science: 


1 Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. τι. 8, 9, beati vel sancti simus, vel per desidiam 
&e. et negligentiam a beatitudine in malitiam 
2 Tertullian, De Anima, c. 21-80. See et perditionem vergamus, in tantum ut 
Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, pp. 830,522. —_ nimius profectus (ut ita dixerim) malitia,, 
8 De Princip. Lib. 1. cap. 5. si quis in tantum sui neglexerit, usque 
4 Lib. ur. cap. 9, num. 7. ad eum statum deveniat, ut ea que dici- 
5 Et per hoc consequens est in nobis tur contraria virtus efficiatur. — Lib. I. 
esse, atque in nostris motibus, ut vel cap. 5, num. 5. : 


i Ee ee οὧὖν a Ne ee ee ee 


264 OF FREE WILL. 


or his art ; and so no man will be good who does not practise good- 
ness, and, if he neglects self-discipline and is idle, he will soon lapse 
into sin and corruption.1_ Such language assigns so much strength 
to man, and keeps out of sight so much the necessity of Divine 
grace, that it has been truly said not to have been ‘ without reason 
that St. Hierome accuses him of having furnished the Pelagians 
with principles ;”” though yet in some places he speaks very favour- 
ably of grace and of the assistance of God.? 

In later times, as we have seen already, Manes and his followers 
held that good or evil actions were produced by the good or the evil 
principle. ‘They appear to have believed that men are acted on by 
these powers as an inanimate stock, which must passively submit to 
the impulses which move it.® 

St. Augustine was himself originally a Manichee. In his earlier 
treatises he constantly directs his arguments against the Manichean 
doctrines, as being those errors with which he was best acquainted, 
and which he dreaded most.* 

After the rise of Pelagianism, and when his efforts were chiefly 
directed to the overthrow of that heresy, he speaks less frequently 
and clearly in favour of the original freedom of the will, and brings 
more prominently out those predestinarian opinions which are so 
well known in connection with his name. It would not, however, 
be true to say that he materially changed his opinions on that sub- 
ject; for in some of his most decidedly Anti-Pelagian writings, 
and whilst most strongly maintaining the sovereignty of Divine 
grace, he unequivocally asserts the freedom of the human will, as 
a gift of God to be used and accounted for.® 

The tenets of the Pelagians on this subject are expressed in one 
of the charges urged against Coelestius in the Council of Carthage, 
‘“¢ That a man may be without sin, and keep the commandments of 


(Arr. X. 


1 Lib. 1. cap. 4. Liberum ergo arbitrium evacuamus 
2 Dupin, Lcclesiastical Hist. Cent. 111. per gratiam? Absit, sed magis liberum 
Origen. arbitrium statuimus. Sicut enim lex per 


It seems as if Clement of Alexandria 
pressed the doctrine of free will to a 
very undue extent, though not so far nor 
80 systematically as his great pupil Ori- 
gen. See Bp. Kaye’s Clement of Alexan- 

ria, ch. X. p. 429. 

ὃ Beausobre, and apparently Lardner 
who quotes him, doubt whether the Man- 
ichees did believe the will to be so thor- 
oughly enslaved. See Lardner, Hist. of 
Mamichees, Sec. 1v. 18. Vol. 111. p. 474. 

* For instance, see the treatise De 
Libero Arbitrio, Opp. Tom. 1. 

δ᾽ For example, De Spiritu et Litera, 
§ 52, Tom. x. p. 114. 


fidem, sic liberum arbitrium per gratiam 
non evacuatur sed statuitur. Neque 
enim lex impletur nisi libero arbitrio: 
sed per legem cognitio peccati, per fidem 
impetratio gratie contra peccatum, per 
gratiam sanatio anim@ a vitio peccati, 

r anime sanitatem libertas arbitrii, per 
iberum arbitrium justitiw dilectio, per 
justitiea dilectionem legis operatio. ἂς 
per hov, sicut lex non evacuatur, sed 
statuitur per fidem, quia fides impetrat 
gratiam, qua lex impleatur: ita liberum 
arbitrium non evacuatur per gratiam, sed 
statuitur, quia gratia sanat voluntatem, 
qua justitia libere diligatur. 


880. 1. OF FREE WILL. 265 


God if he will;”’} or in the passage which Augustine cites from 
his work, ‘“‘ Our victory proceeds not from the help of God, but 
from the freedom of will.”’? The Semi-Pelagians, though they 
did not deny the necessity of grace, yet taught that preventing 
grace was not necessary to produce the beginnings of true repent- 
ance, that every one could by natural strength turn towards God, 
but that no one could advance and persevere without the assistance 
of the Spirit of God.? 

In the ninth century, Goteschale, a Saxon divine, broached 
strong predestinarian doctrines, which, of course, more or less 
embraced the subject of the present Article; for, as he is said to 
have held that God eternally decreed some men to salvation and 
others to perdition, he must have held that the will was in a great 
degree subject to an inevitable necessity. The history of this 
controversy, however, more properly belongs to the seventeenth 
Article. The disputes on the doctrines of Goteschale divided the 
writers of his day.. He was defended by Ratramn, monk of Corby, 
famous on more accounts than one, and condemned by Rabanus 
Maurus and Johannes Scotus Erigena. 

In the twelfth century flourished Peter, surnamed Lombardus or 
Lombard, Archbishop of Paris, who wrote a book called Libri 
Sententiarum, in which he compiled extracts from the fathers on 
different points of faith and doctrine, from which he was afterwards 
known as the Magister Sententiarum, or Master of the Sentences. 
His work became the text-book for future disputants, the store- 
house for scholastic polemics, esteemed wellnigh upon a par with 
Scripture itself. 

The schoolmen, who followed him, and flourished chiefly in the 
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, discussed to a great extent the 
questions concerning predestination and the freedom of the will. 
The most famous of these, as being heads of powerful and opposing 
parties, were Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus. Thomas 
Aquinas was a Dominican Friar, of a philosophical spirit and great 
learning, and was known by the name of Doctor Universalis, or 


Angelicus. He was born in Italy, a. Ὁ. 1224, and died in 1274. 


1 Wall, Infant Baptism, τ. Ὁ. 357; Col- 
lier, Eccl. Hist. Book 1., and the ac- 
count of Pelagianism given under Arti- 
cle IX. 

2 Victoriam nostram non ex Dei esse 
adjutorio, sed ex libero arbitrio. — Au- 

t. De Gestis Pelagii, Tom. x. p. 215. 

8 Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. v. pt. 11. 
ch. v. ὃ 20, 

84 


Vitalis held that ‘‘ God did work in us 
to will, by the Scriptures either read or 
heard by us ; but that toconsent to them 
or not consent is so in our own power 
that if we will it may be done.” — Au- 
gust. Hpist. cv11. ad Vitalem. 

4. See Mosheim, Cent. 1x. pt. 1. ch. 
Ill. 


“λει. ὧν ὦ ee eS ee ΤΥ ee 
ἂν ““ς. 


266 OF FREE WILL. | (Arr. X 


His most famous work is his Swmma Theologie. In philosophy he 
was a Realist ; in Theology, a disciple of St. Augustine ; and there- 
fore opposed to that belief too prevalent among the schoolmen, 
that the gift of grace was dependent on the manner in which men 
exercised their merely natural endowments (pura naturalia). 
Duns Scotus, born at Dunston in Northumberland, about the 
period of the death of Aquinas, was a Franciscan. He attacked 
the system of Thomas Aquinas, and acquired the name of Doctor 
Subtilis. He so strongly maintained the doctrine of the freedom 
of the will as to approximate suspiciously to the error of Pelagius. 
Duns Scotus was the founder of the School called the Scotists, to 
which the Franciscan friars belonged. The followers of Thomas 
Aquinas were called Thomists, and to these belonged the Domini- 
cans, who with the Franciscans divided between them the learning 
of the Christian world in the ages preceding the Reformation. 

In reasoning on the subject of the human will, and the need of 
grace to produce holiness, the school-authors invented a mode of 
speaking, alluded to in our thirteenth article, by which they 
endeavoured to reconcile some of the apparent difficulties of the 
question. They observed that Cornelius, before his baptism and 
a knowledge of the Gospel, had put up prayers and given alms, 
which are spoken of in Scripture as acceptable to God.! They 
thought, therefore, that some degree of goodness was attributable 
to unassisted efforts on the part of man towards the attainment of 
holiness ; and, though they did not hold that such efforts did, of 
their own merit, deserve grace, yet they taught that in some de- 
gree they were such as to call down the grace of God upon them, 
it being not indeed obligatory on the justice of God to reward such 
efforts by giving His grace, but it being agreeable to His nature 
and goodness to bestow grace on those who make such efforts. 
Endeavors, then, on the part of man to attain to godliness were 
by the schoolmen said to deserve grace de congruo, of congruity. 
But, when once grace was given, then it enabled the recipient to 
deserve at the hands of God, not only farther grace, but even in 
the end everlasting life. All this of course was to be considered 
as depending on the Atonement of Christ ; but whatever was pre- 
supposed, it remarkably tended to the exalting the power of the 
will, and the strength of unassisted man.? 


1 Acts x. 4: “Thy prayers and thine out the marked Clesnation between the 
alms are come up for a memorial before doctrine of ence de congruo,as held by 
2 Aquinas, and the same doctrine, as held 
2 Laurence, B. L. Serm. rv. and the by ων of Hales and the Francis 
notes to that Sermon passim. Neander, cans. 
vol. vi11. pp. 230, 231. Neander points 


Suc. 11 OF FREE WILL. 26T 
We now come to the period of the Reformation. The doctrine 
of grace de congruo gave the greatest possible offence to Luther, 
and called forth much of his strongest language. For example, in 
his treatise on the Bondage of the Will he asserted, that ‘in his 
actings towards God, in things pertaining to salvation or damna- 
tion, man has no free will, but is the captive, the subject, and the 
servant, either of the will of God, or of the will of Satan.” 1 Again, 
“If we believe that God foreknows and predestinates everything 
. it follows that there can be no such thing as free will in 
man or angel, or any creature.’ These expressions are charac- 
teristic of the vehemence of Luther’s temper, when opposing what 
he considered a dangerous error, and are much stronger than the 
opinions subsequently expressed by him, and very different from 
the language of Melancthon and the confessions of the Lutheran 

Churches. 

. In the Council of Trent the Lutheran opinions on this doctrine 
were set forth to be discussed. Much was said on both sides of 
the question. The Franciscans, as being followers of Scotus, spoke 
much for the absolute freedom of the will, and in favour of the 
doctrine of grace de congruo. The Dominicans, after St. Thomas 
Aquinas, repudiated the idea of congruous merit, and maintained 
the inability of man to turn:to good of his own will, since the fall 
of Adam. The decrees were drawn up, so as to displease either 
party as little as possible, but with a leaning to the Franciscan 
doctrines. ‘Those were condemned who said ‘that since the sin 
of Adam free will is lost,” and that ‘* bad as well as good works are 
done by the working of God.” Yet, at the same time, those were 
anathematized who said that “‘a man could be justified without 
grace,”’ *¢ that grace is given to live well with greater facility, and 
to merit eternal life, as if free will could do it though with more 
difficulty ;”’ and who said that ‘a man may believe, love, hope, or 
repent, without the prevention or assistance of the Holy Spirit.” 8 

In the earlier days of the Reformation, the Lutherans generally 
held extreme language on the slavery of the will, and Melancthon 
himself used expressions which he afterwards withdrew. The more 


1 Ceterum erga Deum, vel in rebus 
que pertinent ad salutem vel damna- 
tionem, non habet liberum arbitrium, sed 
captivus, subjectus et servus est vel vol- 
untatis Dei, vel voluntatis Satane.— De 
Servo Arbitrio, Opp. Tom. 1. p. 482. 

2 Sienim credimus verum esse, quod 
Deus prescit et preordinat omnia, tum 
neque falli neque impediri potest sua 


prescientia et predestinatione, deinde 
nihil fieri nisi ipso volente, id quod ipsa 
ratio cogitur concedere, simul ipsa ra; 
tione teste, nullum potest esse liberum 
arbitrium in homine vel angelo, aut ulla 
creatura. — /d. p. 481. 
8. Sarpi, pp. 134, 210; Heylyn, Histo. 
ria Quinquarticularis, pt. 1. ch. Iv. 





—sT ΎΥν 


268 OF FREE WILL. 


matured convictions of this great writer were sober and wise ; and 
the confession of Augsburg, whilst affirming that the will of man 
“hath not the power to effect the righteousness of God without the 
Spirit of God,”’1 yet declares that ‘the cause of sin is the will of 
wicked beings, namely, the devil and ungodly men, which, when not 
aided by God, turns itself from God, as it is written, When he 
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of himself.” 2 

The Calvinistic reformers do not hesitate to use the most ex- 
treme expressions on the inability of man to do anything but evil. 
“The mind of man,” says Calvin, ‘is so wholly alienated from 
God, that it can conceive, desire, and effect nothing but what is 
impious, perverted, foul, impure, and flagitious ; the heart of sin is 
so steeped in venom, that it can breathe forth nothing but fetid 
corruption.” ὃ 

The followers of Calvin have, for the most part, used language 
similar to their leader. Whether Calvin allowed to Adam free will 
in Paradise, or believed that even his fall was predestinated, has 
been matter of dispute. Of the Calvinistic divines, those called 
Supralapsarians held, as has been mentioned before, that God fore- 
ordained that Adam should sin, and therefore denied to him free 
will even in a state of innocence. The Sublapsarians held that he 
fell of his own will, and not by constraint or through the ordina- 
tion of God. 

Among the bodies of Christians who embraced the Calvinistic 
doctrines and discipline, some of the most considerable were the 
Churches of Holland and Belgium. The Belgic Confession, put 
forth in the year 1567, contains explicit declarations that all things 
in the world must happen according to the absolute decree and 
ordination of God, though God was not to be called the author of 
sin, nor to be blamed for its existence. Several divines of the 
Belgic Church had demurred at these doctrines ; and at the end of 
the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, Jacob 
Van Harmin, or Arminius, a pastor of Amsterdam, broached the 


(Arr. X 


1 Non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto 
efficionde justitie Dei, seu justitie spirit- 
ualis, quia animalis homo non percipit ea, 

uw sunt Spiritus Dei. — Art. xvit. ; 
ylloye, Ὁ. 129. 

δ Art. x1x. De causa peccati docent, 
quod tametsi Deus creat et conservat na- 
turam, tamen causa peccati est voluntas 
malorum, videlicet diaboli et impiorum, 
que non adjuvante Deo avertit sea Deo, 
sicut Christus ait Joh. viii., Cum loqui- 
tur mendacium, ex seipso loquitur.— 


Syll. p. 180. 


8 Stet ergo nobis indubia ista veritas, 
que nullis machinamentis quatefieri pot- 
est, mentem hominis sic alienatam pror- 
sus a Dei justitia, ut nihil non impium, 
contortum, feedum, impurum, flagitiosum 
concipiat, concupiscat, moliatur : cor pec- 
cati veneno ita penitus delibutum, ut 
nihil quam corruptum fetorem efflare 

ueat. — Calv. ZJnstitut, Lib. 1. cap. ¥ 


9. 
* Confess. Belgica, Sylloge, p. 234 


Sec. I.] OF FREE WILL. 269 


sentiments generally known by the name of Arminianism. He 
dying in 1609, and his followers being persecuted by the dominant 
party, they addressed, in 1610, a Remonstrance to the states of 
Holland, whence they were called Remonstrants. Their senti- 
ments on the subject of free will may be gathered from the third 
and fourth of the five articles, to which the Arminian doctrines 
were reduced. 

The third article says that “man cannot attain to saving faith 
of his own free will, in regard that, living in an estate of sin and 
defection from God, he is not able of himself to think, will, or do 
anything which is really good.” The fourth article runs thus, 
« The grace of God is the beginning, promotion, and accomplish- 
ment of everything that is good in us; insomuch that the regen- 
erate man can neither think, will, nor do anything that is good, 
nor resist any sinful temptations without this grace preventing, 
codperating, and assisting; and consequently, all good works 
which any man can attain to, are to be attributed to the grace of 
God in Christ. But, as for the manner of the codperation of this 
grace, it is not irresistible ; for it is said of many in Scripture, 
‘that they did resist the Holy Ghost, as in Acts vii. and many other 
places.” } 

The disputes between the Remonstrants and their opponents 
led to the calling of a Synod at Dort, or Dordrecht, at which dep- 
uties were present from most of the Protestant Churches of Europe. 
At this the Arminians were excommunicated, and the doctrines of 
the Swiss and Belgic reformed Churches declared to be decidedly 
Calvinistic, and intolerant of the opposite opinions.? Both election 
and reprobation are declared to be of God alone ; 3 but at the same 
time, it is affirmed that God is not to be considered as the author 
of sin;* nor is it to be said that He works on men as logs or 
stocks, but rather by giving life and energy to their wills.6 The 
decrees of the Synod are indeed generally esteemed decidedly su- 
pralapsarian, and were unsatisfactory to the English divines who 
were present during some of their discussions ;® but their language 
seems less exaggerated than some who were opposed to them have 
been inclined to represent it.” 

The Church of Rome, after the Council of Trent, was not 


1 Heylyn’s Hist. Quing. pt. 1. ch. v.; ὄὅ Ibid. p. 481, Art. xvi. 
Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. xvii. Sect. 11. 6 See Bp. Hall’s Observations on some 


pt. 11. Specialities in his Life. 
2 Heylyn and Mosheim as above. 7 See, for example, Heylyn, H. Q pt 
8 Sylloge, p. 406, Art. vr. 1. ch. v1. 
ε Thid. p. 409, Art. xv. 


270 OF FREE WILL. [Arr. X. 


exempt from the same controversies which divided the Protestants 
‘on grace and free will. Molina, a Jesuit, professor at Ebora, in 
Portugal, in 1588, published a book entitled Liberi arbitrii con- 
cordia cum Gratic donis, Divina Prescientia, Predestinatione, et 
Reprobatione. His theory was somewhat similar to that of the 
Arminians, who taught that grace was given, according as God 
foresees that man would embrace and make good use of it. The 
Dominicans were much offended at this work, and accused the 
Jesuits of reviving Pelagianism. ‘This led to a long and violent 
contention between the two orders, which caused Clement VIII. 
to appoint a sort of Council called the Congregation de Auxiliis.' 
The death of Clement VIII., before a settlement of these disputes, 
did not prevent their continuance under his successor, Paul V. 
And though Paul did not publicly declare for either side of the 
question, it is probable that he urged both parties to moderation, 
being deterred from pronouncing against the Jesuits by the patron- 
age extended to them by the court of France, and from deciding 
against the Dominicans by the protection of the court of Spain.? 
The controversy, hushed for a time, broke out again in the year 
1640, in consequence of the writings of Jansenius, Bishop of 
Ypres, who revived the doctrines of Augustine, in his book enti- 
tled Augustinus. His followers were called Jansenists, and were 
strongly opposed by the Jesuits; the former maintaining the sen- 
timents held by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the Dominicans, 
the latter holding those of Duns Scotus and the Franciscans. The 
book of Jansenius was first condemned as a breach of the concord. 
which had been enjoined in the Church, but was afterwards more 
distinctly prohibited by a solemn bull of Pope Urban VIII., a. v. 
1642. The Jansenists however continued to prosper, numbering 
many able and pious men in their ranks, and appealing to miracles 
in support of their opinions. But ultimately they were condemned 
and persecuted by the Bishops of Rome, and the dominant faction 
of the Church.® ; 

Before concluding this sketch of the different controversies in 
other countries, we must mention the Socinian opinions on free 
will ; which, of course, correspond with their views of original sin ; 
as they appear to consider that man’s will is so far free and strong 
as to need only external, and not internal help towards his sanctifi- 
cation.* 

After the Retormation, or during the establishment of it im 


1 Mosheim, Cent. xvz. Sect. x11. Ῥέα. ὃ Ibid. Cent. xvir. Sect. 11. pt. τ. § 40 
2 Ibid. Cent. xvit. Sect. 11. pt. 1. § 85. 4 Ibid. Cent.xv1. Sect. a1. pt. 11. 17. 


Src: 1] OF FREE WILL. 211 


England, the first thing which particularly claims our attention is 
the Article of Free Will in the Necessary Doctrine, set forth by 
King Henry VIII. and signed by Convocation, a. p, 1648. In 
this it is said that ** man has free will now after the fall of Adam ; ” 
and free will is defined, as ‘a power of reason and will by which 
good is chosen by the assistance of grace, or evil is chosen without 
the assistance of the same.” ? 

The reformers in the reign of Edward VI. appear to have fol- 
lowed closely upon the steps "of the Liathefans (Melancthon and the 
Confession of Augsburg), in the Articles which concern grace 
and free will.2— The Article on free will, in the forty-two Articles 
of 1552, was immediately succeeded by an Article on grace, which 
was worded as follows : — 

“Or GRacE. 

‘The grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost by Him given, doth 
take away the stony heart and giveth an heart of flesh. And 
although those who have no will to good things, He maketh them 
will, and those that would evil things, He maketh them not to 
will; yet nevertheless he enforceth not the will. And therefore 
no man, when he sinneth, can excuse himself as not worthy to be 
blamed or condemned, by alleging that he sinned unwillingly or by 
compulsion.” 

During the Marian persecution, the English Divines who fled 
to Frankfort and other places on the Continent, by being thrown 
into contact with foreign reformers, were drawn into the contro- 
versies which agitated them. Many came back with strong prej- 
udices in favour of the Calvinists, while others were strongly dis- 
posed to maintain Lutheran views. There were therefore three 
distinct parties in the Church in the early part of the reign of 
Elizabeth. Some were for the restoration of popery; others in- 
clined to Lutheran views of grace and of the Sacraments; and a 
third party had imbibed Calvinistic sentiments of predestination 
and church discipline, and Zuinglian sentiments on sacramental 
grace. The last were the forerunners of the Puritans, who soon 
became non-conformists, and finally dissenters. They acyuired 
the name of Gospellers, and called their opponents Freewillers. 
Archbishop Parker and the leading men of the day wisely strove 
to heal the divisions, and softened down the language of our for- 
mularies so as to include as many as possible within the pale of the 


1 Formularies of Faith inthe Reign of “5. See Laurence, B. L. passim, espe- 
Henry VIII. p. 359, where see the A Arti- cially Sermon v. 
cle of Free Will at ‘length. 


ee ee ee 


272 OF FREE WILL. (Arr. X. 


National Church; and among other measures of conciliation the 
Article on Grace was omitted, to satisfy the Calvinistic section of 
the Church.? 

The controversies, however, between the high Church and the 
Puritan divines, both on points of doctrine and of discipline, con- 
tinued to divide the Church. Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
in doctrine agreed with Calvin, but in discipline was a high Episco- 
palian. During his primacy were drawn up the famous Lambeth 
Articles, which he would gladly have imposed on the Church, but 
which never received the authority of the queen, the parliament, or 
the convocation. The first of these Articles says, that ““ God hath 
from eternity predestinated some men to life, others He has repro- 
bated to death; ”’ and the ninth asserts, that “¢ it is not in the will 
or power of every one to be saved.” ? 

In the conference held at Hampton Court in the reign of King 
James I. a. Ὁ. 1603, an effort was made on the part of the Puritan 
divines to obtain an alteration in some of the XX XIX Articles, 
and to have them made more conformable to Calvinistic language ; 
but no alteration was effected, owing to the opposition of the King 
and of the Bishops to the arguments of the Puritans.’ 

The Articles remain therefore as they were put forth in 1562, and 
afterwards in 1571. And those on the subject of grace, free will, 
and other similar subjects, are the same as those drawn up in 1552, 
by Cranmer and his fellows, with the exception of the omission of 
the Article on Grace which was then the tenth Article, and the 
prefixing of the first part of the present tenth (originally the ninth 
Article) down to the word ‘* wherefore.” 

There have been, ever since the reign of Elizabeth, two parties 
in the English Church, one holding the doctrines of Calvin, and 
the other opposing those doctrines, and each party has considered 
the Articles to speak their own language. It is however an un- 
doubted truth that the Articles were drawn up before Calvin’s 
works had become extensively known, or had become in any degree 
popular in this country. It is probable that they speak the lan- 
guage neither of Calvin, nor of Arminius; and between the ex- 
treme opinions, which had prevailed among the Schoolmen and 
others, they held a middle course, carefully avoiding the dogma of 
congruous merit, maintaining jealously the absolute necessity of 
preventing grace to enable us to will or to do according to the 

1 Heylyn’s H. Q. pt. m1. ch. xvit, 2 Heylyn’s H. Q. pt. 111. ch. xx. 


On the state of parties, &c. in Elizabeth’s ὃ Heylyn, pt. 1. ch. xxu.; Card 
reign, see Soames’s Elizabethan Religious well’s History of Conferences, p. 178, &c. 
istory. 


See. ΠῚ OF FREE WILL. 278 


commandments of God, but not minutely entering into the ques- 
tions concerning the freedom of man before the fall, or the degree 
of free agency left to him since the fall. 





Section II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. - 


To ninth Article having asserted that man by the fall is “* very 
far gone from original righteousness,” there arises at once a 
probability that he is weak and helpless towards good. In rea 
soning therefore on that Article, it was natural in some degree to 
anticipate some of the conclusions of this. - 

Yet still, unless it be clearly conceded that by the fall man 
became totally corrupt, with no shadow of the image of God in 
which he was created, and with a mind nearly approaching, if not 
actually similar, to the mind of devils; it would be possible that 
such a degree of strength might remain to him that he might 
make some independent efforts towards holiness, and in some 
degree prepare himself for the reception of grace. As therefore 
the ninth Article does not define the exact amount of man’s 
defection from original righteousness, it was quite necessary to 
state the doctrine of his utter helplessness in this. 

The subject, as it is stated in the Article, seems to divide itself 
into the two following heads. 


I. Since the fall, man has no power by his own natural 
strength to turn himself to faith and godliness, or to do good works 
acceptable to God. But the grace of God is absolutely necessary 
to enable him to do this. 

II. The grace of God acts in two ways. 

1. First, it is preventing grace, giving a good will. 

2. Afterwards, it is codperating grace, working in and with 
us, when we have that good will. 


I. First, then, since the fall, man has no power by his own 
natural strength to turn himself to faith and holiness, or to do 
good works acceptable to God. But the grace of God is abso- 
lutely necessary to enable him to do this. 

Here the point to be proved is simply this. Whatever degree 

35 


— |. s ΝΣ ΧΕ ΣΝ ι΄... , - -ιὧν, . 
‘ Ἢ με: 


91. OF FREE WILL. [Anr. X 


of defection is implied in the fall, whatever natural amiability any 
individuals of the human race may possess, no one, by mere 
natural strength, and without internal help from God, can believe 
or do what is, in a religious point of view, pleasing or acceptable 
to God. 

1. In the sixth chapter of St. John our Lord says, ‘No man 

can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw 
him” (ver. 44) ; and again, ““ Therefore said I unto you, no man 
can come unto: Me, except it were given him of My Father” 
(ver. 65). 
Now here the proposition is quite general. All mankind are 
included in the sentence, ‘‘ No man can come” to Christ, except it 
be given him of God, except God the Father draw him. This_ is 
a plain statement of natural weakness, and of the need of prevent- 
ing grace. It shows that by nature man is apart from Christ, 
and that only the gift of God and the drawing of God can bring 
him to Christ. 

To this argument the Pelagians answer, that no doubt it is 
necessary that God should draw us, if we are to come to Him; 
but the way in which He draws us is not by internal assistance 
and the motions of His Spirit in our hearts, but externally, by the 
calls of His word, the warnings of His Providence, the ordinances 
of His Church. Thus, therefore, say they, He may be said to 
draw us, and thus it is given us of Him to come to Christ. But 
we may reply to this objection, that such an interpretation is in- 
consistent with the whole drift of our Lord’s discourse. The Ca- 
pharnaite Jews, who heard Him, were staggered at His sayings, 
and disbelieved them. Externally the word of God was drawing 
them: then, but they murmured against it, and refused to listen to 
it. Accordingly our Lord tells them that it was from an absence 
of:inward sanctification that they rejected the outward calls of His 
word. If they came to Him, it must be by the drawing of the 
Father, through the grace of His Spirit: for, says He, “" No man 
can come unto Me, except the Father, which hath sent Me, draw 
him ; and 1 will raise him up at the last day. As it is written 
_in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man 
therefore that hath heard, and that hath learned of the Father, 
cometh unto me” (vy. 44, 45).. If by these words is meant only 
the outward drawing by external means, it is plain that all who heard 
Him had such drawing in its most efficient form ; yet most of them 
rejected Him. It is evident that they lacked something more than 
this. That being taught of God, that learning of the Father, 


Sxc. 11. OF FREE WILL. 275 


which would bring them to Christ, must therefore have been some- 
thing within them, not the calls of His word without ; and hence 
we may conclude that our Lord’s words show it to be an invari- 
able rule, a truth coextensive with the nature of fallen man, that 
no one can come to Christ, or, what is the same thing, turn and 
prepare himself to faith and calling upon God, without the internal 
operations of the Spirit of God. 

2. To confirm this view of the subject, let us recur to what 
we saw, in considering the ninth Article, was the doctrine of Serip- 
ture concerning our original corruption. 

Our Lord states (J ohn viii. 84) that ““ whosoever committeth sin 
is the servant (δοῦλος the slave) of sin.” Now all men by nature 
commit sin, and therefore are slaves of sin. This is what St. Paul 
calls ‘+ the bondage of corruption” (Rom. viii. 21). This natural 
state of man is, both by our Lord and by the Apostle, contrasted 
with the liberty of the soul under a state of grace. “If the Son 
shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John viii. 36), says 
Christ ; and St. Paul calls it ‘the glorious liberty of the children 
of God” (Rom. viii. 21). In like manner our Lord distinguishes 
between the state of a servant and the state of a son (John viii. 35). 
Nay, so complete is this servitude of sin by nature, that St. Paul, 
more than once, calls it death. He speaks of people as by nature 
«ς dead in trespasses and sins ” (Ephes. ii. 1; Col. ii. 13). He says of 
those who had been delivered from this state by grace, that “* God 
had guickened them together with Christ ’’ (Ephes. ii. 5) ; that those 
who were baptized into the death of Christ, having been dead in 
trespasses and sins, God had “‘ guickened together with Him” (Col. 
ii. 12, 13). Now slavery and death are the strongest terms to ex- 
press utter helplessness that language admits of. So, freeing from 
slavery and quickening or raising to life, as plainly as possible, in- 
dicate a free gift, independent of the will or power of the recipient, 
and show that the recipient must previously have been in a con- 
dition, as unable to free himself as the bondsman, as unable to 
quicken himself as a dead man. 

In accordance with all this, St. Paul (in Rom. vii. viii., a pas- 
sage considered in the last Article) anges at length, that man, 
being by nature “ carnal, sold under sin,” even if able to admire 
what’ is good, was utterly unable to perform it (Rom. vii. 1421), 
there being a law, ruling in his members, which makes him captive 
to the law of sin (v. 23). And then he tells us, that the way in 
which this bondage must be broken is by the Spirit of God taking 
possession of and ruling in that heart, in which before sin had 


276 OF FREE WILL. [Anr. X 


ruled, and so delivering it from the law of sin, ‘For the law of 
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law 
of sin and death” (viii. 2). 

Not only is such helplessness of the unregenerate man plainly 
taught by our Lord and His Apostles, but we farther find, that 
the very mind and understanding are represented as darkened by 
the natural state of corruption, and so incapable of comprehending 
and appreciating spiritual truth, until enlightened by the Spirit of 
God. Thus “ the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit 
of God; . . . . neither can he know them, because they are spirit- 
aally discerned ” (1 Cor. ii. 14, comp. Rom. viii. 5 6,7; Jude 19). 
Man by nature has no discernment of those things which belong 
to the Spirit of God; and if so, it is quite clear, that, if he ever 
attains to spiritual discernment, it must be given him preternat- 
urally. 

To this belong all the passages concerning the new birth; for 
if a new birth be necessary, there must, before it, be an absence 
of that life which is the product of such a birth. Accordingly, 
God is represented as begetting us of His own will J ames i. 18), 
To enter into the kingdom, a man must be born again, of water, 
and of the Spirit (John iii. 3,5). In Christ Jesus a new creation 
availeth (Gal. vi. 15). It is not by works of righteousness which 
we have done, but according to His own mercy that God saveth 
us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost 
(Tit. iii. 5). 

In like manner, the Scriptures, when speaking of the good works 
of Christians, represent them as due, not to any independent effort 
of the human will, but altogether to the grace of God working in 
them. Thus our Lord, in a parable, fully declares the whole 
source and spring of Christian holiness to be the life and virtue 
derived from Him. He likens Himself to a Vine, and all His 
disciples to branches. We know, that branches of a tree derive 
life and strength from the sap, which is sent into them from the 
root and stem. In like manner our Lord tells us, that, by being 
branches of Him, we may bring forth good fruit, but that, apart 
from Him, we can do nothing. ‘Abide in Me, and I in you. As 
the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; 
no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the Vine, ye are 
the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same 
bringeth forth much fruit; for without Me (χωρὶς ἐμοῦ, apart from 
Me) ye can do nothing (John xv. 4, 5). 

So constantly is this dependence of the Christian upon Divine 


Src. IL] OF FREE WILL. 217 


grace urged by the sacred writers, that they frequently call to our 
remembrance, not only that we owe our first turning from evil to 
the quickening of God’s Spirit, but that even the regenerate and 
the faithful believer is at every step dependent upon the illumina- 
tion, guidance, strength, and support of the same Divine Comforter 
and Guide. So St. Paul, writing of himself and other regenerate 
Christians, says, “‘ Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think 
anything as of ourselves: but.our sufficiency is of God” (2 Cor. iii. 
δ). When urging his faithful converts to “‘work out their own 
salvation with fear and trembling,” he adds as an encouragement 
to them, ‘“ For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to 
do of His good pleasure” (Phil. ii. 13). And when speaking with 
thankfulness of the labours which he himself had been enabled to 
undergo for the sake of the Gospel, he adds, “" Yet not I, but the 
grace of God which was with me” (1 Cor. xv. 10). 

Now all this language of Scripture seems plainly to prove that 
by nature man has no free will to do good, no power to make in- 
dependent efforts towards holiness. There is an iron tyranny, a 
law of sin and death, which keeps him in bondage and deprives 
him of the power to escape, and even of the discernment of spiritual 
things, which would make him desire deliverance. From this law 
of sin and death the Spirit of life can set him free ; from this 
bondage the Son can make him free indeed ; but none besides. 
Nay! he is sleeping the sleep of spiritual death, and therefore 
needs internal as well as external aid to rouse him; aye! a new 
creation, a new birth, a new life. And even when set free, quick- 
ened, regenerate, he continues still able to act and think uprightly 
only so long as he derives strength from Christ ; just as the branch 
can bear no fruit, except it derive sap and strength from the stem 
on which it grows. 

Th. Tt being thus proved that by nature man, corrupted by the 
fall, is not in possession of free will, or more properly, that his will, 
though unrestrained by God, is yet warped and led captive by evil 
spirits and his own bad propensities, it remains that we consider 
the effects of God’s grace upon the will, when setting it free from 
this captivity. The Article describes these effects, as follows : — 

1. God’s grace prevents us, that we may have a good will. 

2. It works in us, or with us, when we have that good will. 

The passages of Scripture which have been already brought to 
bear in the former division of the subject, may appear to have suf- 
ficiently demonstrated these two propositions. 

1. The necessity of preventing grace follows, of course, Stout the 


278 OF FREE WILL. (Arr. X 


doctrine that man, of himself, cannot turn to God. For, if he can- 
not turn of himself, he must either remain forever alienated, or 
‘must need some power to turn him. In the language of the 
prophet, ‘“* Turn Thou me, and I shall be turned” (Jer. xxxi. 18). 
Accordingly, we read continually of the first turning of the heart 
as coming from God. God is said to be “found of them that 
sought Him not, and made manifest to them that asked not after 
Him” (Isai. lxv. 1; Rom. x. 20). We read of His opening peo- 
ple’s *‘ hearts so that they attend to the things spoken ” (Acts xvi. 
14); and we are taught that He “ worketh in us both to will and 
to do”. (Phil. ii. 18) ; so that the regenerate and sanctified Chris- 
tian is declared to be God’s “" workmanship ereated in Christ Jesus 
unto good works ” (Eph. ii. 10). God is said to have “ wrought” 
believers for immortality and glory (2 Cor. v. 5). The “new 
man’”’ is said to be ““ created in righteousness and true holiness” 
(Eph. iv. 24). 

. Such. passages, and all others which speak of new birth and new 
creation, show plainly that God’s grace prevents us, waits not, that 
is, for us to make advances to Him, but graciously comes forward 
to help us, whilst yet we are without strength. They show too, 
that whereas by nature the will was corrupt and not tending to 
God, bound down and taken captive to the law of sin, so when the 
grace of God renews it, it is no longer in slavery, but free, choosing 
life and holiness, not by compulsion, but by free choice and love. 
** The Son makes us free indeed ” (John viii. 86). ‘* The law of 
the Spirit of life makes us free from the law of sin and death” 
(Rom. viii. 2). There is a “ glorious liberty for the children of 
God” (Rom. viii. 21). It is, “to liberty” that we “have been 
called ” (Gal. v. 13); for, ‘“‘ where the Spirit of the Lord is, there 
is liberty ” (2 Cor. iii. 17). 

We see then the contrast which exists between the will in its 
natural corrupt state, and the will in its regenerate and purified 
state. In the former it is enslaved; in the latter it is free. Satan 
keeps it a bond-slave in the first ; God sets it free in the last. Then 
it could only choose evil; now it is free to choose good. Then 
under the law of sin and death; now under “ the perfect aw οὗ 
liberty” (James a. 25). 

2. But the will, thus set free, needs farther support, guidance, 
and strength. The new-born Christian has still a conflict to under- 
go, for which he requires the whole armour of God. This is ex- 
pressed in the Article, by the words ‘ working with us when we 
have that good will.’ 


Src. Π.] OF FREE WILL. — 279 


The Latin Article has the word cooperante, which in the first 
English translation was rendered “ working in us;” but in 1572 it 
was expivessed somewhat more closely after the Latin, “ working 
with us.’ 

Such expressions of course imply that when the will is vlineRed 
there is need of farther grace to support it, but, at the same time, 
that the renewed man is to exert himself in the strength of that 
grace, and to work under its influence. 

The doctrine of codperation: has been opposed by many as 
assigning too much strength to man. Man, say they, is altogether 
too weak either to begin the work of grace, or even, after that 
work is begun, to contribute anything towards its completion. It 
is patching the pure robe of Christ’s righteousness to add any of 
the filthy rags of man’s works to it. Accordingly, St. Paul attrib- 
utes all his own labours, not to himself, but to ‘the grace of God 
which was with him” (1 Cor. xv. 10); and says, “I no longer 
live myself (ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼν), but Christ liveth in me” (Gal. ii. 20): 
And it is written that God “* worketh in us,” not with us, ““ both to 
will and to do” (Phil. ii. 13). 

Whether codperation be a good expression or not, and whethdt 
it be altogether reverent to speak as if the Holy Spirit of God and 
man’s renewed will act in concert. together, is of course fairly open 
to question. In general, no doubt the Scriptures speak of God’s 
working in us, rather than with us. Yet the doctrine of our Arti- 
cle, rightly understood, rests on a sound foundation. 

In the first instance indeed man’s will is represented as being 
under bondage. Spiritually we are described as slaves, blind, dead. 
But as we have seen, the Son is said to “* make us free ;”” the ‘+ law 
of the Spirit of life frees us from the law of sin and death;” and 
so we are brought into “ the glorious liberty of the children of God.” 
Thus it appears that Christ’s service is indeed perfect freedom. 
The will, no longer enslaved and bowed down, is set at liberty and 
enabled to act ; and though, whenever and howsoever it acts ina 
good direction, it is always acting under the guidance and gover- 
nance of the Spirit of God, yet it does not follow that that guidance 
is a yoke of bondage, or of irresistible necessity. Accordingly, 
when the Apostle has explained how the Spirit frees us from the 
law of sin, and brings us into the glorious liberty of God’s children 
(Rom, viii. 2-21), a tells us a little farther on, that whereas we 
still continue weak and ignorant, “ the Spirit helpeth our infirmities” 
(ver. 26). In the very same breath in which he tells us that it 
is God that worketh in us both to will and to do,” he bids us 


280 OF FREE WILL. [Arr. X 


“ work out our own salvation with fear and trembling”’ (Phil. ii. 
12,13). And so he speaks of himself as using all kinds of self- 
discipline a Cor. ix. 27), and as “ pressing forward to the mark 
for the prize of the high calling” (Phil. iii. 14). 

To this purpose are all the exhortations of Scripture addressed 
to those who are under grace, not to miss the blessings which God 
has prepared for them. For example, we have warnings not to 
- defile the temple of God,” ¢. 6. not to pollute with sin our bodies, 
in which God’s Spirit dwells (1 Cor. iii. 17) ; not to grieve, not to 
quench the Spirit (Eph, iv. 30; 1 Thess. v. 19); ; not to neglect 
the gift which is in us, but to stir it up da Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 
6); not to “receive the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. vi. 1); 
“to stand fast,” and not ‘fall from grace” (Gal. v. 1-4) ; “ to 
take heed lest there be an evil heart of unbelief in departing from 
the living God ” (Heb. iii. 12); to “look diligently, lest any man 
fail of the grace of God” (Heb. xii. 15); when we think we are 
standing, ““ to take heed lest we fall”? (1 Cor. x. 12). 

Now all such passages do indeed plainly presuppose that all the 
good we can do comes from the Spirit of God working in us. Yet 
they seem as plainly to prove that that blessed Spirit does not move 
the will as a mere machine, so that it is impossible for it to resist 
or neglect His blessed influences. It seems plain from them, that 
under those influences, and guided by them, the renewed heart 
moyes willingly ; and that, whenever those influences do not pro- 
duce their full effect, it is because the remains of corruption in that 
heart resist and counteract them. And this is all that is meant in 
the Article by the term cooperante, “ working with us.” 

If, indeed, according to the sentiment of Luther, quoted in the 
former section, man’s will was first a mere bond-slave of sin, and after 
grace equally a slave, or machine, moved passively and irresistibly 
by the Spirit, we can hardly understand how it should be that 
men are not all equally abandoned before grace, and all equally 
moving onward to perfection under grace. Since by that theory 
the will is entirely passive under the motions of the Spirit, opposing 
no obstacle to them, and therefore, as we should suppose, likely in 
all persons to be fully and perfectly sanctified. 

_ The doctrine of Scripture, however, is evidently expressed in 
the words of our Article. God must give the will, must set the 
will free from its natural slavery, before it can turn to good; but 
then it moves in the freedom which He has bestowed upon it, and 
never so truly uses that freedom, as when it follows the motions 
of the Spirit. Yetclearly there remains some power to resist and 


Src. Π.1 OF FREE WILL. 281 


to do evil. For, though “those that have no will to good things 
God maketh them to will; . . . Yet, nevertheless, He enforceth 
not the will.” And so, although He must work in us, yet we, 
under His influences, must strive and press forward, not resisting 
Him, not neglecting, but. stirring up His gifts in our hearts, 


1 Art. of 1552. 


ARTICLE ΧΙ. 


—~— 


Of the Justification of Man. 


We are accounted righteous before 
God, only for the merit of our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and 
not for our own works or deservings: 
Wherefore, that we are justified by faith 
only is a most wholesome doctrine, and 


De Hominis Just: ficatione. 


TanTUM propter meritum Domini et 
Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, per fidem, 
non propter opera et merita nostra, justi 
coram Deo reputamur. Quare sola fide 
nos justificari, doctrina est saluberrima, 
ac consolationis plenissima, ut in homilia 


very full of comfort, as more largely is 


de justificatione hominis fusius explica- 
expressed in the Homily of Justification. 


tur. 





Srcrion I.— HISTORY. 


: is probable that natural religion inclines all men, uninstructed 
by Revelation, to seek for pardon and acceptance with God, 
either by attempting to live up to His law, or by making some per- 
sonal sacrifices as an atonement for offences against it. The robe 
laid before the statue of Athena, or the hecatomb offered to Phe- 
bus, were to compensate for sins against their divinity. 

If we look to Jewish history, we shall find the prophets remon- 
strating with the Israelites for thinking that ceremonial observan- 
ces would satisfy for the breach of God’s commandments, and their 
sincerest penitents acknowledging that sacrifices would not profit 
them, but that they needed to be purged as with hyssop, and new 
created in heart (Psalm li.). Hence we may readily see, that the 
temptation of the Jews was to seek God’s favour, when they had 
fallen from it, by ceremonial rites, without sufficient reference to 
the spirit of the ritual; as with many it was to seek the same 
favor by a rigid observance of a mere formal obedience, such as 
our Lord reproves in the Pharisees, and as St. Paul declares to 
have been the cause of the fall of his countrymen (Rom. ix. 31, 
82). The Rabbins appear to have taught that a man’s good deeds 
would be weighed against his bad; and that if the former prepon- 
derated, he would be accepted and rewarded.’ And forgetting or 
neglecting the spiritual significance of their prophecies and sacri- 
fices, they expected a Messiah indeed, but a triumphant conqueror, 


1 See Bull, Harmon. Apost. τι. xvi. 8. 


Sxc. L] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 2838 


not one who by His death would expiate their sins; and so the 
Cross of Christ was a stumbling-block and offence to them. They 
were profoundly ignorant that Christ should be to them ‘the end 
of the Law for righteousness,” that by Him alone all who believed 
in Him should receive justification and life.1 

It has been thought also, that some among the Jews held that 
a man would be saved, even without holiness, who simply embraced 
the creed of Abraham, acknowledging the unity of the Godhead 
and the Resurrection of the dead; a view which seems to have 
been adopted by Mohammed in the Koran. Accordingly, it has 
been said, that, as St. Paul in his Epistles condemned the former 
error of his fellow-countrymen, so St. James directed his Epistle 
against the latter: the one showing, that neither ceremonial obser- 
vances nor legal obedience could satisfy the demands of God’s jus- 
tice, but that an atonement and true faith were necessary; the 
other, that a mere creed was not calculated to please God, when 
the life was not consistent with it.? 

The sentiments of the fathers on the subject of justification 
have afforded matter for much discussion. According to some; 
they taught nearly the doctrine of the Council of Trent ; according 
to others, they nearly spoke the language of Luther. The truth 
appears to lie in neither of these statements. Justification had 
not been in early times the cause of much debate. No fierce con- 
tests had arisen upon it. Hence, no need was felt for accurate 
definitions concerning it. The statements of the fathers are there- 
fore generally rather practical than formal. ‘Fhey dwell much on 
the Atonement, and the meritorious cause of pardon; so much so, 
that they could see the Blood of Christ in the scarlet thread which 
Rahab tied in her window, and His Cross in the stretched out 
hands of Moses, when Israel prevailed over Midian. But they do 
not appear ever to have entered thoroughly into the question of 
justification, as it was afterwards debated in the time of the school- 
men, and, still more, of the reformers. 

It is remarkable, that probably the most express statement on 
the subject which occurs in all the writings of the fathers, is to be 
found in the very earliest of all, Clement of Rome. Speaking of 
faithful men of old; he writes, “ They-were all therefore greatly 
glorified, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the 

1 See Bull, Harmon. Apost. 11. xvii. 3. that his Epistle was written before St, 

2 See Michaelis, Introduction to the Paul’s, or at least before he had seen St. 
New Testument, rv. ch. xxvi. ὃ 6, who Paul’s writings. 


considers this to have been the cause of 8 Clem. Rom. Epist.1 ad Corinth. 12. 
St. James’s argument on justification,and Barnab. Epist. 12. 


284 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 


righteousness that they themselves wrought ; but through His will. 
And we also, being called by the same will in Christ Jesus, are 
not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowl- 
edge, or piety, or any works which we did in holiness of heart, but 
by that faith by which God Almighty has justified all men from 
the beginning: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” ἢ 

The passage is important, not only because of its antiquity, but 
because of its distinctness. The word “justify ”’ appears to be 
used, as our Article uses it, for “to account righteous ;” not, as 
the Council of Trent, for “ to make righteous ” by infusion of holi- 
ness ; and the instrument of such justification is declared to be and 
ever to have been, not ““ wisdom, knowledge, piety, or works done 
in holiness of heart, but” * faith.” 2 

With regard to the statements of the later fathers, we must 
carefully bear in mind, that, without question, they attributed the 
salvation of man solely and perfectly to the Blood of Christ ; that 
they did not look to be saved because they had deserved salvation, 
but because Christ had satisfied for their sins; but though this is 
thus far plain, it will not enable us to come to any certain conclu- 
sion as to their views concerning the doctrine of justification 
scholastically considered. 

Such passages as the following show the spirit of the fathers, as 
regards their reliance on the Atonement of Christ. ‘Let us 
without ceasing hold steadfastly to Him, who is our hope, and the 
earnest of our righteousness, even Jesus Christ, who His own self 


[Arr. XL 


᾿ 


bare our sins in His own body on 


1 Clem. Rom. Fpist. 1. cap. 82. 

2 Πάντες οὖν ἐδοξάσϑησαν, ob δὲ αὐτῶν, ἢ 
τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν, ἢ διὼ τῆς δικαιοπραγίας ἧς 
κατειργάσαντο, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ ϑελῆματος αὐτοῦ. 
Καὶ ἡμεὶς οὖν διὰ ϑελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ 
"Inoov κληϑέντες, οὐ du’ ἑαυτῶν δικαιοῦμεϑα, 
οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σοφίας, ἢ συνέσεως, ἢ 
εὐσεβείας, ἢ ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεϑα ἐν 
ὁσιότητι καρδίας " ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως, δι᾽ ἧς 
πώντας τοὺς an’ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ Θεὸς 
ἐδικαίωσεν " ᾧ ἔστω δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν 
αἰώνων. ᾿Αμῆν. 

Almost the only question which may 
be raised on the passage is, Does: St. 
Clement contrast faith with works done 
betore the grace of God, or works after 
the grace of God, ἡ, ὁ. evangelical works ? 
Dr. Waterland says, “It is of great 
weight with him, that so early and so 
considerable a writer as Clement of 
Rome, an apostolical man, should so in- 
terpret the doctrine of justifying faith as 
too it plainly even to evangeli 
works, however exalted.” — W Ix. 


the tree ; who did no sin, neither 


p. 452. Mr. Faber thinks that, “ Indis- 
putably, by the very force and tenor of their 
definition (i. 6. as being works done in 
holiness of heart), they are works per- 
formed after the infusion of holiness into 
the heart by the gracious spirit of God.” 
— Primitive Doctrine of Justification, p. 88. 
Mr. Newman, on the other hand, con- 
tends that “in holiness of heart” means 
no more than “ piously,” “ holily ;” and 
that ‘‘ works which we did in holiness of 
heart” (as ‘the article is omitted before 
ἔργων though not the former substantives 
σοφίας, εὐσεβείας, &c., and the verb κατειρ- 


.yaodueda is in the aorist) would more 


naturally, though perhaps not necessa- 
rily, signify an hypothetical, not a real 
case, as in those words of St. Jerome 
afterwards quoted by Mr. Faber, p. 122, 
“ Convertentem impium per solam fidem 
justificat Deus, non per opera que non 

buit.””— Newman, On Justification, Ὁ 


cal 486. 


a a 


Sxc. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 285 


was guile found in His mouth; but suffered all for us that we might 
live through Him.” 1 

_ © For this cause did. our Lord vouchsafe to give up His Body 
to destruction, that through the forgiveness of our sins we might 
be sanctified; that is, by the sprinkling of His Blood.” 3 

‘By His stripes healing is conferred on all who come to the 
Father by Him.’ ὃ 

“« All men fall short of the glory of God, and are justified not 
by themselves, but by the coming of the Lord.” 4 

41 will not glory because I am righteous, but because I am 
redeemed. I will glory, not because I am free from sins, but 
because my sins are forgiven me; not because I have profited, 
nor because any one hath profited me, but because Christ is my 
Advocate with the Father, and because Christ’s Blood hath been 
shed for me.” ® 

** Our righteousness . . . . is such in this life that it consists 
rather in remission of sins than in perfection of virtue.’’ δ 

‘Not to commit sin, is the righteousness of God; but man’s 
righteousness consists in the mercy of God.’’? 

Thus far it is plain that the fathers believed what the Scrip- 
tures taught and what the Article of our Church maintains, that 
‘“‘we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works or de- 
servings.” And if anywhere they seem to speak a language not 
strictly in accordance with this doctrine, we ought in fairness to 
conclude that they do not mean really to contradict themselves, 
though they speak broadly and as the Scriptures speak, concerning 
the necessity of that ““ holiness, without which no man shall see the 
Lord.” But when we come to technical terms, and express defini- 
tions, we shall find considerable difficulty in ascertaining the sense 
attached to them in the patristic writings. We have already seen 
something like a distinct statement in Clement of Rome, and 
something nearly approaching it may be found in those who fol- 
lowed him. A few examples I have thrown into the note6 Yet 


: Polycarp, Faden VIII. autem justitia, Dei indulgentia. — Ber- 

2 Barnab. nard, Sermon. 21 et 23 in Cantic. See 

3 Just. M. ny at p. 866. See also Bp. Calvin, Jnstitut. 111.12. See also Neander, 
Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 77. viii. p. 218. 

* Tren. 1v. xxxvii. See also Beaven’s ὃ Οὐ γὰρ δῆ ye εἰς βαλανεῖον ὑμᾶς ἔπεμ- 

Treneus, Ὁ. 194. πεν Ἡσαΐας ἀπολουσομένους ἐκεῖ τὸν φόνον 


5 Ambros. De Jacobo et Vita Beat.1.6. καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἁμαρτίας, οὖς οὐδὲ τὸ τῆς 
See Newman, On Justification, p. 401. ϑαλάσσης ἱκανὸν πᾶν ὕδωρ καϑαρίσαι, ἀλλὰ 
® August. De Civit. χιχ. 27. See ὡς εἰκὸς πάλαι τοῦτο ἐκεῖνο τὸ σωτήριον 
Calvin, Institut. 111. 12. λουτρὸν ἦν, ὅ εἵπετο τοῖς μεταγινώσκουσι, 
7 Non peccare Dei est justitia; hominis καὶ μηκέτι αἵματι τρώγων καὶ προθάτων ἢ 


286 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 
it seems, on a general examination of the most remarkable passages 
from the ancient writings on this subject, that it is extremely 
difficult to say whether the fathers always understood the word 
“justification ” in a forensic sense, as signifying acquittal from guilt 
and imputation of righteousness, or rather, as, in addition to that, 
containing in it the notion of infusion of righteousness. It has 
already been observed that we must not expect in their words the 
precision of controversy, where no controversy had been raised. In 
order of time, acquittal from guilt and infusion of righteousness 
(or what in modern Theology have been called justification and 
sanctification) go together, and are never separated. Therefore, 
though at times the fathers seem to use the term “ justification ” 
merely in its forensic sense, yet sometimes they speak too as if it 
included the idea of making just, as well as of esteeming just. 

For example, in one place St. Chrysostom (on Rom. viii. 33: 
* It is God that justifieth ; who is he that condemneth?”) writes: 
“He does’ not say, it is God that forgave our sins, but, what is 
much greater, It is God that justifieth. For when the Judge’s 
sentence declares us just (δικαίους ἀποφαίνει), and such a Judge 
too, what signifieth the accuser?” Here he seems to speak as if 
he considered justification as no more than “ declaring or pro- 
nouncing just.” Yet, in other parts of the same work, he clearly 
shows that in justification he considered something more to be in- 
eluded than remission and acquittal. Thus, in the Eighth Homily 
on Rom. iv. 7, (“ Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,””) 
we read: “ He seems to be bringing a testimony beside his purpose. 
For it does not say, Blessed are they whose faith is reckoned for 
righteousness. But he does so purposely, not inadvertently, to 
show the greater excellence. For if he be blessed that by grace 


(Arr. XI 


σποδῷ δαμάλεως, ἢ σεμιδάλεως προσφοραῖς 
i aT μα ἀλλὰ ip διὰ τοῦ αἵματος 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ϑανάτου αὐτοῦ, b¢ διὰ 
τοῦτο ἀπέϑανεν. xk. τ. A.—Just. M. Dial. 
p. 229, d. 

Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus 
Abrahe, cujus diem concupivit videre : 
sed neque Pater Domini; didicerat enim 
a Verbo Domini, et credidit ei ; quaprop- 
ter et deputatum est ei ad justitiam a 
Domino. Fides enim que est ad Deum 
altissimum justificat hominem. — Irene. 
Iv. 18. See also rv. 27. 

His igitur consideratis pertractatisque 
pro viribus quas Dominus donare dig- 
natur, colligimus non justificari hominem 

receptis bone vite nisi per fidem Jesu 
Christi, hoc est non lege operum 
dei; non litera sed spiritu, non facto- 


rum meritis sed gratuita gratia. — Au- 
gust. De Spiritu et Litera, cap. 22. 

Convertentem impium per solam fidem 
justificat Deus, non opera bona que non 
habuit: alioquin per impietatis opera 
fuerat puniendus. Simul attende, quia 
non peccatorem dicit justificari per fidem 
sed impium, hoc est, nuper credentem 
asseruit. 

Secundum propositum qratie Dei.| Qui 
proposuit gratis per solam fidem peccata 
dimittere. — Hieron. /n Epist. ad Rom. 
cap. iv. Tom. v. pp. 937, 938. The 
Benedictine editors consider this com- 
mentary as not Jerome’s. See also Jn 
Hpist. ad Galat. cap. iii. 

1 Homil. in Ep. ad Rom. xv. See also 
Hom. vit. on ch. iii. 27. 


Src. 1 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 287 


received forgiveness, much more he that is made just and that 
manifests faith.” Again, Homil. x. on Rom. v. 16, (“the free gift 
is of many offences unto justification,” ) he argues that “it was not 
only that sins were done away, but that righteousness was given.” 
It is true that to be esteemed righteous is more than to be esteemed 
sinless ; as the one would only deliver from punishment, the other 
give a right to reward; and so St. Chrysostom may only mean 
that justification is more than pardon, because to be accounted 
righteous is more than to be acquitted of guilt. But it appears to 
have been common to many of the fathers to leave in some uncer- 
tainty the question, whether justification did or did not contain in 
it the making that of which it involved the imputation. 

This is especially observable in the works of St. Augustine. 
For example, in the 45th chapter of the De Spiritu et Litera, 
where he is reasoning on the words of St. Paul, ‘‘ The doers of the 
Law shall be justified.” He asks “" What is to be justified but to 
be made just by Him who justifies the ungodly, so that from un- 
godly, he becomes just?” and*so he concludes, that by this phrase 
St. Paul means that ‘‘ they shall be made just who before were not 
so, not who before were just; that so the Jews, who were hearers 
of the Law, might understand that they need the grace of a justifier 
that they might become doers of the Law.” Or else, he proposes 
to interpret it in the other way, ‘ shall be justified, as though it 
were said, shall be held and accounted righteous ; just as it is said 
of a certain one, He willing to justify himself, that is, to be held 
and esteemed just.” Sothen Augustine appears to leave it an open 
question, whether to justify is to make, or to esteem and hold as 
righteous. : 

Yet, though there be such ambiguity, we need be but. little 
solicitous on the subject; but rather conclude, that “the point 
having never been discussed, and those fathers never having 
thoroughly considered the sense of St. Paul, might unawares take 
the word (justify).as it sounded in the Latin, especially the sense 
they affixed to it signifying a matter very true and certain in Chris- 
tianity.”’ 1 

Dr. Waterland, in his treatise on Justification, has collected 
a great number of passages from the fathers, to show that they 
considered every person at his baptism to receive the gift of justi- 
fication. Our limits will not allow us to follow him at length. But 
if we take justification to mean remission of sin and admission into 


1 Barrow, 11. Sermon v. On Justification by Faith. 
2 Waterland’s Works, 1x. p. 442. z 


288 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. {[Arr. XL 


God’s favour, it needs but very slight acquaintance with the writ- 
ings of the early Christians to know, that as they confessed their 
faith ‘in one baptism for the remission of sins,” so they universally 
taught that all persons duly receiving baptism, and not hindering 
the grace of God by unbelief and impenitence, obtained in baptism 
pardon for sin, admission into the Christian Church and covenant, 
and the assistance of the Holy Spirit of God; and that so they 
were thenceforth “ children of God, members of Christ, and inheri- 
tors of the kingdom of heaven.” 

To sum up what has been said. In the essence of this Article 
the fathers’ language is clear. They held, that all hope of salva- 
tion must spring from the mercy of God through the merits of 
Christ. They taught, that every person baptized (not forfeiting 
the grace by sin and impenitence) was looked on as a member of 
the body of the faithful, and so in favour with God. They spoke 
too of faith as that state of salvation in which we receive justi- 
fication and life. But (if at least we make some exceptions) they 
do not speak in the clear and controversial language of later days; 
nor is it always certain, whether by the word justified they under- 
stand that a man’s faith is accounted to him for righteousness, or 
that, being the great sanctifying principle, it is the instrument 
whereby God works in him holiness. 

It would be beside our purpose and exceed our limits to inves- 
tigate at length the definitions of the schoolmen. Learned discus- 
sions are liable to much misunderstanding, But the impressions 
popularly conveyed by the teaching of the scholastic divines, and 
especially the view which was taken of them by Luther and their 
opponents, are very important to our right apprehension of the 
controversy at the time of the Reformation. 

In the first place it appears that the schoolmen generally un- 
derstood justification to mean not infusion of righteousness, but 
forgiveness of sins. It is true, they looked on it as the immediate 
result of, and as inseparably connected with grace infused; but 
their definitions made justification to mean, not the making right- 
eous, but the declaring righteous.! 

. It is not to be supposed that they denied or doubted that such 


1 Primo queritur, an justificatio impii Question. Disput. quest. 28, Art. 1. quoted 
sit remissio peccatorum? Et videtur by Laurence, Bampt. Lect. p. 119. 
uod non... . Sed contra est quod Neander, vitt. p. 222, gives an in- 
itur in Glossa Rom. viii. Super illud teresting account of the scholastic dis- 
“ Quos vocavit, hos et justificavit.” Glo. cussions on justification. His statements 
remissione peccatorum: ergo remissio appear different from those in the text, 
peccatorum est justificatio. — Aquinas, but it is only so at first sight. 


Sec. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 289 


justification sprang primarily from the grace of: God, and merito- 
riously from the death of Christ. The faults charged upon their 
system are, that they looked for merit de congruo, and de condigno, 
that they attached efficacy to attrition, that they inculcated the doc- 
trine of satisfaction, and that they assigned grace to the Sacraments 
ex opere operato. 

Luther especially insists that these scholastic opinions were 
directly subversive of the doctrine of St. Paul, and of the grace of 
God. ‘+ They say,” he writes, “* that a good work before grace is 
able to obtain grace of congruity (which they call meritum de con- 
gruo), because it is meet that God should reward such a work. 
But when grace is obtained, the work following deserveth eternal 
life of debt and worthiness, which they call merituwm de condigno. 
. . .. For the first God is no debtor, but because He is just and 
good, He must approve such good work, though it be done in 
mortal sin, and so give grace for such service. But when grace is 
obtained, God is become a debtor, and is constrained of right and 
duty to give eternal life. For now it is not only a work of free- 
will, done according to the substance, but also done in grace, which 
makes a man acceptable to God, that is to say, in charity.” “ This 
is the divinity of the kingdom of antichrist; which here I recite, 
that St. Paul’s argument may be the better understood, for two 
things contrary to one another being put together may be the 
better understood.” } 

Again, the compunction for sin which might be felt before the 
grace of God was given, was called attrition ; compunction arising 
from the motions of God’s Spirit being called contrition. Now 
attrition was considered as a means whereby God predisposed to 
grace. So that it had in it some merit de congruo, and so of its 
own nature led to contrition and to justification.? 

There being some difficulty in knowing whether a man’s repent- 
ance was contrition or merely attrition, the Church was supposed to 
come to his aid with the power of the keys. The sacrament of 
penance added to attrition, and works of satisfaction being enjoined, 
the conscience was to be stilled, though it might yet be uncertain 
whether true repentance and lively faith had really been attained.? 


1 Luther, on Galatians, ii. 16. gratia : et pro illa attritione, ut pro mer- 

2 See Laurence, B. L. Lect. rv. and v1. ito, justificat, sicut ‘est meritum justifi- 
Also notes on Lect. vi. The following is cationis. Et licet non continuaretur idem 
one sentence from a long passage quoted actus circa peccatum in genere nature et 
by him, p. 821, from Scotus, Lib. rv. moris, qui prius, adhuc in illo instanti in- 
dist. Iv. quest. 2. funderetur gratia, qui jam precepit mer- 

“ Potest ergo dici quod Deus disponit itum de congruo.” 
per attritionem, in aliquo instanti dare ὃ Laurence, as above, and p. 320. 

37 ᾿ 


290 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. (Arr. XL 


Once more, the doctrine that the Sacraments worked 
and so effected justification independently of the faith of the re- 
ceiver, and merely ex opere operato, was by the reformers charged 
upon the schoolmen, as overthrowing the doctrine of justification, 
through faith, by the merits of Christ.1_ And at last when by 
attrition perfected by penance, satisfaction, and absolution, and 
through the grace of God passing into contrition, the sinner was 
believed to be pardoned, and his soul justified before God, it still 
remained a question whether there was not a certain amount of 
temporal punishment to be endured, in this life perhaps, but more 
probably in purgatory, before the soul be received into full favour 
with God, and be pronounced “ not guilty” in His presence. 

The abuses which prevailed at the time of the Reformation 
connected with the above doctrines are popularly known. Hence, 
especially, the merit attached to pilgrimages, and other works of 
satisfaction, which were thought capable of averting the temporal 
punishments yet due to sin; although of course eternal punish- 
ment could be averted only by the merits of Christ. Hence, too, 
the famous sale of indulgences, which first prompted Luther to take 
the steps which led rapidly to his breach with the see of Rome. 

It is possible that much of the teaching of the schoolmen, and 
of the more learned and pious of the divines of the Middle Ages, 
may, when fairly interpreted, admit of a sense far more innocent 
han we are apt to attribute to it, and might, if confined to the 
schools, have produced comparatively little mischief. But the effect 
produced upon the popular mind was evidently noxious. Nothing 
can be more plain than the fact, that reformers, in all countries, 
felt that the great evil against which they had to fight was the 
general belief that man could merit God’s favour by good deeds of 
his own, and that works of mercy, charity, and self-denial, procured 
(through the intercession of Christ, or perhaps of the Virgin Mary) 
pardon for sin and acceptance with God. 

It was in opposition to all this, that Luther so strongly pro- 
pounded his doctrine of * justification by faith only.” He saw the 
extreme importance of teaching men to acknowledge their own 
weakness, and to rely on the Atonement ‘tas a full, perfect, and 
sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.” Salvation was 
to be ascribed to grace, not to be claimed as a right; and with the 
view of effectually destroying all hope from claims, he adopted the 
language of St. Paul, and put forth in its strongest possible 
form, as the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesia, the statement, 

1 Laurence, p. 324. 


Βέεο OF THE JUSTIFICALION OF MAN. 201 


that “justification is by faith only,”’ without works, love, or holiness. 
That is to say, he asserted that man is justified through, or because 
of the merits of Christ, and that the sole instrument of his justifi- 
cation is faith. This faith indeed will produce charity, and so 
good works; but, when considered as justifying, it must be con- 
sidered as apart from holiness, and charity, and good works. 

The vehemence of his temper, and the great importance which 
he attached to his doctrine, led him to state it in language which 
we may not approve. Such language, if used now, when very 
different errors prevail from those most common in Luther’s time, 
might, in all probability, lead to Antinomianism and fanaticism of 
allkinds. But it is necessary to put ourselves into Luther’s posi- 
tion, and to take a fair view of the man, whose energy brought 
about the greatest revolution in history, in order to judge fairly of 
his language and opinions. 

For example, Luther stated that faith alone, not faith informed 
or perfected by charity, was that which justified. This seems 
opposed to the language of St. James (ch. ii. 14, &c.),and even to 
the language of St. Paul, who tells us that it is ‘faith, which 
worketh by love,” which “ availeth in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. v. 6). 
Accordingly, the schoolmen had distinguished between fides informis, 
a faith which was merely speculative, and had in it neither love 
nor holiness, and fides formata, or faith which is perfected by the 
charity and good works which spring from it; to which faith they 
attributed the office of justifying.1 Now this statement, that it is 
fides formata which justifies, Luther denied. By so doing it wik 
be thought by many that he contradicted Scripture, the fathers, 
the homilies of our own Church, and the sentiments of many con- 
temporary reformers. But the ground on which he did so he 
himself clearly explains to us. The schoolmen and Romanist 
divines, according to him, taught that faith, furnished with charity, 
justified the sinner, in order that they might assign the office of 
justification, not to the faith, but to the charity: that so it might 
be said, Faith justifies indeed ; but itis because of the merit of that 
charity, and of those good works which it contains, and which give 
it all its efficacy. ‘ Faith,” he says, is, according to them, “ the 
body and the shell; charity the life, the kernel, the form, and fur- 
niture.” ‘ But we,” he continues, ‘in the stead of this charity, put 


1 On this scholastic distinction see est. Christus nisi cum Spiritus sui sanc- 
Calvin, Jnstit. Lib. 111. ch. ii, § 8. Also tificatione cognosci nequit. Consequitur 
Neander, vi11. 220, 221. Calvin himself fidema pio affectu nullo modo esse dis- 
denies the justice of the distinction on trahendam. A very different argument 
this ground: Fides in Christi notitia sita from Luther’s. 


292 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 


faith, and we say that faith apprehends Jesus Christ, who is the 
form which adorns and furnishes faith . . . . As the schoolmen say 
that charity adorns and furnishes faith, so do we say that it is 
Christ which furnishes or adorns faith, or rather, that He is the very 
form and perfection of faith. Wherefore Christ apprehended by 
faith and dwelling in the heart is the true Christian righteousness, 
for which God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternal life.” ? 

Faith then, he taught, will justify, not because it is full of love, 
but because it is full of Christ.. Therefore, too, he thought ‘t 
necessary to state that faith justified, before it had charity or good 
works with it; though, of necessity, it must produce charity and 
good works, as soon as it has justified. Faith he compares to the 
bride, Christ to. the bridegroom. The bride will be alone with the 
Bridegroom, but as soon as she cometh forth from the bridecham- 
ber, she will be attended by her bridesmaids and followers, good 
works and holiness. 

The earnestness with which he pursued his object, and the in- 
finite importance which he attached to it, led him into vehemence 
of expressions, and perhaps inaccuracy of statements, which only 
the circumstances of the case can extenuate. At times he seeins to 
speak as if faith itself was the cause, not merely the instrument, of 
salvation. At other times he writes as if good works were rather 
to be avoided than desired. But it is fair to consider these expres- 
sions as the result of inadvertence and the impetuosity with which 
he pleaded a favourite cause, when we find statements of the evil 
of Antinomianism, and the excellency of those works which spring 
from faith, in other portions of the very same writings.? 

It should be added, that Luther plainly put forth the statement 
that the sins of the believer are imputed to Christ, and so that 
Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. He speaks 
often of the desirableness of attaining to personal assurance of sal- 
vation, and at times appears to identify this assurance with justify- 
ing faith.* 

1 Luther on Galat. ii. 16. 


See also 
on Gal. ii. 17; v. 16. 
3 For example, on Gal. iii. 22; “ When 


(Arr. XL 


4 See on Gal. iii. 18. Opera, 1554. 
Tom. v. Ne 850. Concerning Luther’s 
view of the connection of justification 


we are out of the matter of justification, 
we cannot enough praise and extol those 
works which God has commanded. For 
who can enough commend the profit and 
fruit of only one work, which a Chris- 
tian does in and through faith? Indeed, 
it is more precious than heaven and 
nti See also on Gal. iii. 19, 28, 27, 


8 See on Gal. ii. 16; iii. 18. 


with baptism, we may refer to his com- 
mentary on Gal. iii. 27, Tom. v. p, 369. 
There he says, “‘ We have by nature the 
leathern coat of Adam, but we put on. 
Christ by baptism.” In Baptismo non 
datur vestitus legalis justitie aut nostro- 
rum operum, sed Christus fit indumen- 
tum nostrum.... Evangelice Christum 
induere, non est legem et opera, sed in- 
estimabile donum induere, scilicet re 


Sec. 1. OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 298 


The council of Trent was much occupied in discussing Luther’s 
doctrine of justification. Indeed, the Tridentine fathers appear to 
have gone ‘to the consideration of it, with the conviction that all 
his errors might be resolved into this one.* 

It was universally agreed among these divines, that faith justi- 
fies. But what justifying faith was, or how it justified, was much 
debated. ‘ All agreed, that justifying faith is an assent to what- 
soever is revealed by God, or determined by the Church to be 
believed ; which, sometimes being joined with charity, sometimes 
remaining without it, they distinguished into two sorts: one, which 
is found in sinners, which the schools call unformed, solitary, idle, 
or dead ; the other, which is only in the good, working by charity, 
and therefore called formed, efficacious, and lively.” But it was 
not universally agreed that justifying faith was to be called faith 
formed by charity ; Marinarus, a Carmelite, objecting that St. Paul 
did not say that faith was formed by charity, but that it worketh 
by charity.? 

There was much discussion concerning works before grace, and 
merit de congruo ; in which the Franciscans maintained, whilst the 
Dominicans denied, that good works could, be done without the 
Spirit of God, and so merit grace of congruity.? But concerning 
works after grace, all agreed to condemn Luther, who denied in- 
trinsic goodness to works done in and after grace, and asserted even 
that they were sins. These, they all asserted, having been wrought 
by the Spirit of God, were essentially good and perfect.4 They: all 
agreed too, that only faith could not be said to justify, since God 
and the Sacraments do justify, as causes in their several kinds.® 
_ But the principal points of the difficulty were: first, Is a man 
justified, and then acts justly? or, Does he act justly, and then is 
justified ? and, secondly, Is the word “justify” to be used in the 
forensic sense of imputing righteousness; or does it mean infusion 
of habitual righteousness into the heart? On the latter point there 
was much difference of opinion; the Franciscans strongly opposing 
the forensic sense, which was as strongly upheld by Marinarus. 
None doubted that Christ had merited for us, but some blamed the 
word to impute, because it was not found in the fathers ; whilst 
others said that, agreeing on the thing, it was needless to dispute 
about the word ; a word which it appears the’ Dominicans especially 


missionem peccatorum, justitiam, pacem, 2 Thid. p. 183. 

consolationem, letitiam in Spiritu Sancto, 8 Thid. p. 185. 

salutem, vitam, et Christumipsum. See * Ibid. p. 186. 

also De Sacr. Ea On. Tom. 1. p. 72. 5 Tbid. p. 188. 
1 Sarpi, Hist. Lib. 11. p. 178. 


294 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. (Arr. XL 


would have accepted, as showing that all was from Christ, but that 
they suspected any word which was popular with the Lutherans.! 

After many such discussions as these, the Council finally drew 
up sixteen heads and thirty canons or anathemas on the subject 
of justification, yet so guarded and obscure that each party wrote 
treatises to prove that the decisions were in their favour.2 The 
most important of the decrees were the following: (2) That God 
sent His Son to redeem both Jews and Gentiles. (3) But that, 
though He died for all, yet those only enjoy the benefit to whom 
His merit is communicated. (4) That the justification of the 
wicked is a translation from the state of a son of Adam to that of 
a son of God, which, since the Gospel, is not done without baptism 
or the vow thereof. (5) That the beginning of justification in 
adults proceeds from preventing grace. (7) That justification is 
not only remission of sins, but sanctification also; and has five 
causes: the final, God’s glory and eternal life ; the efficient, God; 
the meritorious, Christ ; the instrumental, the sacraments ; and the 
formal, righteousness, given by God, received according to the 
good pleasure of the Holy Ghost, and according to the disposition 
of the receiver, receiving together with remission of sins, faith, 
hope, and charity. (8) That, when St. Paul saith that man is 
justified by faith and gratis, it ought to be understood, because 
faith is the beginning, and the things which precede justification 
are not meritorious of grace.® 

Among the anathemas, some of the most important are: (1) 
That a man may be: justified without grace. (11) That man is 
justified only by the imputation of the justice of Christ, or only by 
remission of sins without inherent grace, or charity ; or that the 
grace of justification is only the favour of God. (12) That justi- 
fying faith is nothing but confidence in the mercy of God, who re- 
mitteth sins for Christ. (14) That man is absolved and justified, 
because he doth firmly believe that he is justified.‘ 

These articles and canons show the difference between Luther 
and the Council of Trent,-so far as we can be certain of the design 
of the latter. Yet the most eminent divines present in the Council, 
after its decrees, debated on their sense ;° so that at last it was 
necessary to make a decree against all notes, glosses, and commen- 
taries; the Pope reserving to himself the right of solving diffi- 
culties, and settling controversies on the subject.® 


: τα i, ge Bk. 11. p. 187. 3 “mega Leer — 1, 11, 12, 14. 
rpi, Bk. 11. p. 215. 
4 * Cone Trident Sess. vi. capp. 2,8, " Ibid. Bk. vit1. p. 762. 
» 7) 79 


OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 295 


Roman Catholic writers since the Reformation have generally 
gone against the forensic sense of the word ‘justify ;”” have held, 
that God by grace implants inherent righteousness in the heart, 
makes the sinner righteous by union with Christ and the indwelling 
of His Spirit, and that then He esteems him, what in fact He has 
made him, a holy and righteous man. Their view has been thus- 
stated by one who may be supposed to have carefully studied it. 
“ΤῸ appears that they hold two things: — that the presence of 
grace implies the absence of mortal sin; next, that it is a divine 
gift bringing with it the property of a continual acceptableness, and 
so recommending the soul to God’s favour so as to anticipate the 
necessity of any superadded pardon.” 1 

To return to the Lutheran divines: Melancthon, the Confession 
of Augsburg, and generally the more moderate Lutherans, softened 
and explained the strong language of Luther. With them Faith 
was trust (fiducia), or fiduciary apprehension. It was made clear, 
that faith in itself had no virtue, but that the meritorious cause 
of justification was the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. So 
that justification by faith was even said to be a correlative term for 
justification or salvation by the merits and death of Christ. Nay, 
justification by faith was even called a Paulina figura, by which 
was meant that we are saved by grace, and not by claims or merits 


Sec. I.] 


of our own.? 


1 Newman, On Justification, p. 896. See 
also Bellarmine, De Justific.; and Bar- 
row, 11. Sect. v. p. 79. 

Bellarmine states the causes of justifi- 
cation thus: 1. The final cause, God’s 
glory and our salvation. 2. The efficient 
cause, God’s goodness and Christ’s merits. 
8. The material cause, the mind or will of 
man, in which righteousness abides, and 
in which are formed the dispositions pre- 
disposing to the formal cause. 4. The 
formal cause, internally, the habit of 
grace; externally, the righteousness of 
Christ. De Justific. Lib. 1. cap. 2. Justi- 
fication he denies to consist in remission 
of sins or imputation of righteousness 
only, but asserts it to have for its formal 
cause the infusion of habitual righteous- 
ness. Lib. 11. cap. 3,6, 15. Good works 
he asserts to be meritorious of eternal 
lite, but that, because they are wrought 
in us by the grace of God. Lib. v. cap. 
12, et passim. 

2 Fide sumus justi, id est, per miseri- 
cordiam propter Christum sumus justi; 
non quia fides sit virtus, que mereatur 
remissionem sua dignifate. — Melancth. 
Loci Theolog. de Argum. Advers. p. 286. 
Laurence, B. L. p. 333. 


, Cum dicitur, Fide justificamur, non - 


aliud dicitur, quam quod propter Filium 
Dei accipiamus remissionem peccatorum 
et reputemur justi... .. Intelligatur ergo 
propositio correlative, Fide justi sumus, id 
est, per misericordiam propter Filium Dei 
sumus justi seu accept. —Mel. Loc. Theol. 
de Voc Fidei, f. 199, 2. Newman, On Jus- 
tif. p. 278. 

Cum igitur dicimus [ide justificamur, 
non hoc intelligimus, quod justi sumus 
propter ipsius virtutis dignitatem, sed 
hee est sententia, consequi nos remissi- 
onem peccatorum, et imputationem jus- 
titi per misericordiam propter Christum 
.... dam bonas mentes nihil offendet 
novitas hujus Pauline figure, Fide justifi- 
camur, si intelligant proprie de misericor- 
dia dici, eamque veris et necessariis lau- 
dibus ornari. Quid potest enim esse gra- 
tius conscientie afflicte et pavide in 
veris doloribus quam audire, hoe esse 
mandatum Dei, hane esse vocem sponsi 
Christi. ut statuant certe donari remis- 
sionem peccatorum seu reconciliationem, 
non propter nostram dignitatem, sed gra- 
tis, per misericordiam, propter Christum, 
ut beneficium sit certum. — Confessio 
August. 1540. De Fide, Sylloge Conjes- 
sionum, Oxf. 1827, p. 182. 


ro 


296 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. (Arr. ΧΙ. 


Thus then it was ruled, that the peculiar significance of St. 
Paul’s language, and of the Lutheran use of it, implied, not an 
opposition of faith to charity, or of faith to holiness, but an oppo- 


sition of the merits of Christ to the merits of man, of the mercy 


of God to the claims which a sinner might suppose himself to have 


for acceptance in God’s presence. 


Still it was clear that, in some sense, faith was made the instru- 
ment or formal cause of justification. And the question still 
remained, Had such faith love in it, or was it to be considered as 
apart from love? We have seen that Luther declared that justi- 
fying faith had not love in it till it had justified ; and to his defi- 
nitions some of the Lutherans adhered, though he may himself 
afterwards have in some degree modified them. 

Melancthon and the moderate Lutherans appear to have spoken 
rather differently. Melancthon says, that ‘‘ no doubt there are love 
and other graces in faith; but that, when St. Paul says, ‘ we are 
justified by faith,’ he means, not by the virtue of that grace, but 
by the mercy of God, for the sake of the Mediator.”* The Con- 
fession of Augsburg declares, that ‘ faith cannot exist except in 
those who repent ;” that “‘ among good works, the chief is faith, 
which produces many other virtues, which cannot exist till faith has 
been conceived in the heart.’”? Again, it reconciles St. James 
and St. Paul, by explaining that St. James speaks of a mere his- 
torical faith, whilst St. Paul speaks of reliance on God’s mercy in 
Christ.2 It distinctly asserts, that faith brings forth good works, 
and quotes with approbation the words of St. Ambrose, Fides bone 
voluntatis et juste actionis genitrizx est. All then, but a few of the 
more rigid Lutherans, agreed that it was a living, not a dead faith, 
a faith full of good works, not a bare and historical assent to truth, 
which justified the soul. Still, the question remained, Was it fides, 
que viva est, or, fides qua viva est, (2. 6. faith, which is living, or 
faith, because it is living,) which justifies? Some thought, that if 
it were considered as justifying because it was living, then there 
would be some merit attached to that which quickened it, or which 


1 Concedo in fiducia inesse dilectionem, 
‘t hane virtutem et plerasque alias ad- 
esse oportere ; sed cum dicimus, Fiducia 
sumus justi, non intelligatur nos propter 
virtutis istius dignitatem, sed per mis- 
ericordiam recipi propter Mediatorem, 

uem tamen oportet fide apprehendi. 
Srgo hoc dicimus correlative.—Melancth. 
Loci Theolog. de Argqum. Advers. p. 284. 
Laurence, B. L. p. 382, Newman, Jus- 


tific. p. 10. 


2 Nee existere fides potest nisi in his 
qui penitentiam agunt, quia fides conso- 
latur corda in contritione et terroribus 
peccati.... Inter bona opera, precipaum 
est et summus cultus Dei fides ipsa, et 
parit multas alias virtutes, que existere 
non possunt, nisi prius corda fidem con- 
τς τὴ — Confess. August. Syll. Conf 


p. 83. 
ὁ Sylloge Conf. pp. 181, 182. 
4 Ibid. p. 183. 


Sec. 1. OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 297 


showed it to be alive, 7. e to charity. ‘ Modes were invented of 
explaining the difficulty, which savoured more of metaphysical 
subtlety than of practical wisdom, such as that mentioned by Bish- 
op Bull: “ Faith justifies, pregnant with good works, but not as 
yet having given birth to them.” } 

Bucer, a divine, who had some concern in our own Reforma- 
tion, and whose opinions are therefore particularly interesting to 
us, seems to have been very moderate on this subject. He ex- 
presses his regret that language should be used concerning faith 
alone, to the exclusion of holiness, such as to offend well-meaning 
men. He considers that no one should object to the additions of 
viva or formata as applied to justifying faith ; since it is plain that 
St. Paul spoke of a living faith as justifying, and only meant to 
exclude self-righteousness.” 

Several controversies concerning justification arose among the 
Lutherans, even in the lifetime of Luther. Osiander, a. p. 1550, 
broached some opinions, the exact nature of which it may be diffi- 
cult to define. They appear to have been chiefly, “that faith does 
not justify by applying and embracing the righteousness of the 
Man Christ, but by uniting to Christ, who then by His Divine 
nature dwells in the heart, and that this union both justifies before 
God, and sanctifies the sinner.” There was probably, however, 
something more than this, or it would hardly have excited the 
vehement opposition of so mild a man as Melancthon.? . 

Of a very different kind were the errors of Agricola, (A. Ὁ. 
1538,) who is accused of having carried the doctrine of faith alone 
to its most noxious extreme. He is esteemed the founder of the 
Antinomians ; and is said to have held that all licentiousness and 
sin were allowable, if only Christ was received and embraced by a 
lively faith. He was vigorously opposed by Luther.! 

To proceed from the Lutheran to the Calvinistic reformers: 
they appear for the most part to have symbolized with Luther in 
his general statement concerning justification. They declared that 
to justify was a forensic term signifying to remit sins, and pronounce 
righteous.© They said, that we receive this justification not by 


5 Justificatio significat Apostolo in dis- 


1 Bull, Harm. Apostol. Diss. Prior. v1. 
2. 


2 See especially: on Psalm xi. quoted 
by Bull, Harm. Apostol. Diss. Post. 11. 8. 

*s Mosh. Ch. Hist. Art. xvi. § 111. part 
11. See also Calv. Jnstit. 111. cap. xi. 5- 
11, who accuses him of opinions border- 
ing on Manicheism. 

* Mosh. as above. 

38 


putatione de Justificatione, peccata remit- 
tere, a culpa et pena absolvere, in gratiam 
recipere, et justum pronunciare. — Confess. 
Helvet. Sylloge, p. 51. 

Nos justificationem simpliciter inter- 
pretamur acceptionem, qua nos Deus in 
gratia: receptos pro — habet — Cal- 
vin, Inst. 111. xi. 2. 


298 


works, but by faith in God’s mercy ; and because faith receives 
Christ, our righteousness, and ascribes all to God’s grace in Christ, 
therefore justification is attributed to faith, and that chiefly be- 
cause of Christ, not because it is any work of ours.! They con- 
sidered it to consist especially in the imputation of our sins to 
Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to us ; and strenuously denied 
that justification was in consequence of any internal sanctification 
wrought in us by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and the faith 
which He inspires.? They denied that justification was of faith 
and works conjoined. But when the question arose, Is the faith 
which justifies to be considered as alone, and informis, or lively, and 
full of good works, (formata) ? they seem to have decided that it 
was the latter and not the former. Although Calvin complained 
that the distinction was nugatory, inasmuch as faith never could 
exist apart from the holiness which it produces.* 

Our own reformers soon embraced the doctrine of Luther, with 
such modifications as their own wisdom suggested. In the Ar- 
ticles set forth in 1536, justification is defined to signify remission 
of sins and acceptance into the favour of God. We are said to 
attain this justification for the only mercy and grace of the Father, 
freely for Jesus Christ’s sake, through contrition and faith joined 
with charity ;° language which is repeated in the Institution of a 
Christian Man.’ 

As on other subjects, the English reformers’ views grew more 
fixed and definite after the death of Henry VIII. The Homily 
of Salvation, and the 11th Article of 1552, expressed definitively 
the judgment of Cranmer and his companions on justification. ἡ 
The 11th Article, as drawn by them, ran thus: ‘ Justification by 


OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Arr. XL 


1 Sylloge, p. 52. 

2 Deus nos justificat non imputans no- 
bis peccata, sed imputans Christi nobis 
justitiam. Sylloge, p. 52. 

Hine et illud conficitur, sola interces- 
sione justitie Christi nos obtinere ut co- 
ram Deo justificemur. Quod perinde 
valet ac si diceretur hominem non in 
seipso justum esse, sed quia Christi jus- 
titia imputatione cum illo communicatur : 
quod accurata animadversione dignum 
est. Siquidem evanescit nugamentum 
illud, ideo justificari hominem fide, quo- 
niam illa Spiritum Dei participat quo jus- 
tus redditur ; quod magis est contrarium 
superiori doctrine quam ut conciliari un- 
quam queat. Neque enim dubium, quin 
sit inops proprie justitiw, qui justitiam 
extra seipsum querere docetur. — Calv. 
Inst, 111. xi. 28. 


3 Calv. Inst. 111. xi. 18, 14. 

4 Quapropter loquimur in hac causa, 
non de ficta fide, de inani et otiosa et 
mortua, sed de viva, vivificanteque, que 
propter Christum, qui vita est et vivificat, 
quem comprehendit, viva est et dicitur, 
ac se vivam esse vivis declarat operibus. 
Nihil itaque contra hanc nostram doc- 
trinam pugnat Jacobus ille, qui de fide 
loquitur inani et mortua, quam quidam 
jactabant, Christum autem intra se viven- 
tem per fidem non habebant. — Confess. 
Helvet. Sylloge, p. 58. See also Calvin, 
Inst. 111. ii. 8, quoted above. 

5 Formularies of Faith in the Reign of 
Henry VIII, Oxford, p. 12. 

6 Ibid. p. 209. 


Szc. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 299 


only faith in Jesus Christ, in that sense as it is declared in the 
Homily of Justification, is a most certain and wholesome doctrine 
for Christian -men.’’ The Article as it stands now is somewhat 
differently worded, but probably conveys the same sense. Both 
send us to the “ Homily of Justification” as the interpreter of the 
sense in which the Church of England understands ‘“ Justification 
by faith ;” and therefore the definitions of this homily, if we can 
discover them, are the definitions of the Anglican Church concern- 
ing this debated point. There is no homily entitled the Homily 
of Justification, but the Homily of Salvation treats expressly of 
justification ; and it has therefore always been understood, either 
that this homily alone, or this conjoined with that which precedes 
and that which follows it, is the homily referred to in the Article. 

The Article itself, as it now stands, appears to speak very much 
the language of Melancthon and the Confession of Augsburg; for _ 
its statement of the doctrine of justification by faith is, that ** We 
are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or 
deservings.” This is language very similar to that of Melancthon, 
quoted above, who considered justification by faith, and salvation 
by grace, to be correlative terms ; and to that of the Confession of 
Augsburg, which ,calls justification by faith a Paulina figura for 
remission of sins by mercy, for the sake of Christ. For further 
explanation the Article sends us to the homily, which teaches as 
follows. 

It begins by defining justification to be “ the forgiveness of sins 
and trespasses.” ‘ This justification or righteousness, which we so 
receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is 
taken, allowed, and accepted for our perfect and full justification. 
. . . . God sent His Son into the world to fulfil the Law for us, 
and by shedding of His most precious Blood, to make a sacrifice 
and satisfaction, or (as it may-be called) amends to His Father for 
our sins, to assuage His wrath and indignation conceived against 
us for the same. Insomuch that infants, being baptized and dying 
in their infancy, are by this sacrifice washed from their sins, brought 
to God’s favour, and made His children, and inheritors of His 
Kingdom of Heaven. And they which in act or deed do sin after 
baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are like- 
wise washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort that there 
remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their dam- 
nation. This is that justification of righteousness which St. Paul 
speaketh of when he saith, Vo man 1s justified by the works of the 


800 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. (Arr. XI 


law, but freely, by faith in Jesus Christ. Gal. ii..... The Apostle 
toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our jus- 
tification. Upon God's part, His great mercy and grace: upon 
Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice... . 
upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, 
which yet is not ours, but God’s working in us... . Therefore St. 
Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man niouncenibig his 
justification, but only a true and lively faith, which nevertheless is 
the gift of God, and not man’s only work without God. And yet 
Howitisto ‘hat faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, 
Resasteretood dread and the fear of God, to be joined with faith, in 
tifieth without every man that is justified, but it shutteth them out 
wae from the office of justifying. So that, although they be 
all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not alto- 
gether ; nor the faith also doth not shut out the justice of our good 
works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty towards God: (for 
we are most bounden to serve God in doing good deeds, commanded 
by Him, in His holy Scripture, all the days of our life :) but it ex- 
cludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be 
made just by doing of them.” 1 

Again — “ The true understanding of the doctrine, we be justified 
freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in 
Christ only, is not that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this 
our faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve 
our justification unto us (for that were to count ourselves to be 
justified by some act or virtue which is within ourselves) ; but the 
true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear 
God’s word and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity, 
repentance, dread and fear of God within us, and do never so many 
good works thereunto; yet we must renounce the merit of all said 
vivid: of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds 
which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as ‘things that be 
far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve remission of 
our sins and our justification ; and therefore we must trust only in 
God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, 
to obtain thereby God’s grace and remission, as well of our original 
sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, 
if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to Him again. So that as 
St. John the Baptist, although he was never so virtuous and godly 
a man, yet in this matter of forgiveness of sin, he did put the peo- 

1 First Part of the Homily of Salvation. 


Sec. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 


801 


ple from him, and appointed them to Christ, saying thus unto them: 
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, 
John i.; even so, as great and godly a virtue as the lively faith is, 
yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or appointeth us unto 
Christ, for to have only by Him remission of our sins, or justifica- 
tion. So that our faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us thus: 
It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only ; and to 
Him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your 
good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your 
trust in Christ.” ! 

It is plain that the doctrine contained in these extracts (from 
a homily which has unusual authority, as being virtually assented 
to by every one who signs the Articles) is briefly as follows. That, 
which the English reformers meant by justification by faith, is, that 
we can never deserve anything at God’s hands by. our own works, 
— that therefore we must owe our salvation only to the free mercy 
of God, who, for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ, pardons and 
accepts all infants who are baptized in His name, and all persons 
who sin after baptism, when by His grace they are brought to re- 
pentance and conversion, — that justification is especially assigned 
to faith, not because of any peculiar excellence in faith itself, but 
rather because faith sends us from itself to Christ, and because by 
it we apprehend Christ and rest upon Him only for acceptance with 
God, — that, though therefore we ascribe justification to faith only, 
it is not meant that justifying faith either is or can be without its 
fruits, but that it isever pregnant and adorned with love, and hope, 
and holiness. 

Language in strict conformity with this was uniformly held by 
those who had the chief hand in drawing up the Articles and com- 
piling the Liturgy, and is to be found in those semi-authoritative 
documents which were from time to time set forth by them.? 


1 Second Part of Homily of Salvation. 
Also concerning the difference between 
a dead and living faith, and the recon- 
ciliation of St. Paul and St. James, see 
Part 8. See alsothe conclusion of the 
8d part of the Homily on Prayer; the 
2d part of the Homily on Almsdeeds, 
near the middle; the conclusion of the 
second Homily of the Passion, and partic- 
ularly the whole of the Homilies of Faith 
and Good Works. 

2 We may refer particularly to the 
following: Cranmer’s Catechism, Oxf. 
pp. 98, 114, 115, 148, 205; Cranmer’s 
ἄγε: ed. Jenkyns, Oxf. 11. p. 121, 111. 


Justification is thus briefly explained 
in Edw. VI.’s Catechism: ‘“‘ As oft as we 
use to say that we are made righteous 
and saved by faith only, it is meant 
thereby, that faith or rather trust alone, 
doth lay hand upon, understand, and per- 
ceive our righteous making to be given 
us of God freely: that is to say, by no 
deserts of our own, but by the free grace 
of the Almighty Father. Moreover, 
faith doth engender in us the love of our 
neighbour, and such works as God is 
pleased withal. For if itbe a true and 
lively faith, quickened by the Holy Ghost, 
she is the mother of all good saying and 
doing .... And although good works 


302 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Ακτ. ΧΙ. 


Owing to the unhappy divisions of later times in the Church of 
England, there has been no small difference among her divines on 
this head of justification; a difference, however, which there is 
gvod reason to hope is rather apparent in scholastic and logical 
definitions, than in its bearing on vital truth or practical godliness. 

The great Hooker wrote a treatise on Justification, in which he 
strongly impugns the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning 
justification by infusion of righteousness, and maintains the princi- 
ple of imputation, distinguishing the righteousness of justification 
as external to us, the righteousness of sanctification as internal. 

Bishop Bull in his Harmonia Apostolica admits that sense of 
justifieation by faith, which, he says, all the sounder Protestants 
have attached to it, namely, Salvation by grace only. He takes 
justification in the forensic sense, the meritorious cause of which is 
Christ, the instrument or formal cause being fides formata, or faith 
accompanied by good works.” 

Dr. Barrow, in the first five of his Sermons on the Creed, dis- 
cusses the nature of faith and justification with great learning and 
moderation. Justification he shows to be a forensic term, to be 
given for the sake of Christ, to be the result of God’s mere mercy, 
apart from our deserts ; yet he considers baptism and faith to be 
the conditions of justification, and faith to include its effects. Faith 
is a hearty reception of the Gospel, first exerting itself by open 
avowal in baptism, to which time therefore the act of justification 


especially pertains. 


cannot deserve to make us righteous be- 
fore God, yet do they so cleave unto faith, 
that neither can faith be found without 
them, nor good works be anywhere with- 
out faith.” — (Enchiridion Theolog. 1. Ὁ. 
25.) 

So Noel’s Catechism: Ad Dei miseri- 
cordiam confugiendum est qua gratis nos 


in Christo nullo nostro merito nec operum ° 


respectu, amore et benevolentia complec- 
titur ; tum peccata nobis nostra condo- 
nans, tum justitia Christi per Fidem in ip- 
sum ita nos donans ut ob eam, perinde 
ac si nostra esset, ipsi acceptisimus... . 
M. Non ergo inter hujus justitiea causas 
Fidem principem locum tenere dicis, ut 
ejus merito nos ex nobis justi coram Deo 
habeamur ? A, Nequaquam : id enim es- 
set Fidem in Christi locum substituere. . 
M. Verum an a bonis operibus ita separari 
hae justitia potest, ut qui hanc habet, illis 
careat? A. Nequaquam....M. Jus- 
titiam ergo, Fidem, ac bona opera, natura 
coherentia esse dicis, que proinde non 


Yet too every dispensation of pardon granted 
upon repentance may be also termed justification. 


Hence every 


magis distrahi debeant quam Christus 
illorum in nobis author a seipso divelli 
possit. — Enchirid. Theolog. τ. p. 282. 

Jewel’s Apology: Itaque unicum re- 
ceptum nostrum et perfugium esse ad 
misericordiam Patris nostri per Jesum 
Christum, ut certo animis nostris persua- 
deamus illum esse propitiationem pro 
peccatis nostris; ejus sanguine omnes 
labes nostras deletas esse... . . Quamvis 
autem dicamus nihil nobis esse presidii 
in operibus et factis nostris, et omnis sa- 
lutis nostre rationem constituamus in 
solo Christo, non tamen ea causa dici- 
mus laxe et solute vivendum esse, quasi 
tingi tantum et credere, satis sit homini 
Christiano, et nihil ab eo aliud expec- 
tetur. Vera Fides viva est, nec potest 
esse otiosa, — Enchirid. Theolog. pp. 181, 
182. 

1 Discourse on Justification, ὧς. Works, 
111. pt. τι. p. 601. Oxf. 18386. 

2 Bull’s νὼ Apost. and Examen Cen- 
sure. Works, Oxf. 111. rv. 


Sec. 1] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 303 


person is justified freely for Christ’s sake at his baptism, continues 
justified whilst he is in a state of lively faith, and returns to a state 
of justification, if he have fallen from it, by repentance.! 

Dr. Waterland, in a very able tract on the same subject, argues, 
that the causes of justification are (1) the moving cause, God’s 
grace and goodness; (2) the meritorious cause, Christ; (8) the 
efficient cause, the Holy Spirit — that its instruments are (1) bap- 
tism; (2) faith—that its conditions are, (1) faith; (2) obedi- 
ence.” 

Mr. Alexander Knox, a writer of great originality and piety, 
expressed himself unable to believe the protestant doctrine of justi- 
fication. ‘The forensic sense of the word seemed to him too like a 
legal fiction: and he could not believe that God could pronounce 
any one just, or account any one righteous, who had really no such 
inherent quality as justice or righteousness. Accordingly, he 
solved the difficulty by asserting that God pronounces those right- 
eous by justification, whom He has already made so by sanctifica- 
tion.? 

In still later days, Mr. Faber has written an able work to prove 
that in the earliest Christian writers, from Clement of Rome down- 
wards, the word justification is used strictly in its forensic sense, 
and that justification is ascribed to faith alone. ἢ 

Lastly, not very long before his secession to the Church of 
Rome, Mr. Newman published a most logical treatise, in which he 
professes to steer a middle course between the Roman and the 
Lutheran doctrines. He takes the forensic sense of the term 
᾿ justification — and asserts, that it is conferred in baptism, is main- 
tained by faith, and consists in the indwelling of the Spirit of God, 
and the being made members of the Body of Christ. 

Whatever speculative differences may have existed of late or in 
times gone by, it is no small comfort to know, that it has been 
allowed by all that fallen man cannot of himself become worthy of 
eternal salvation, that he stands in need both of pardoning mercy 
and sanctifying grace, that this mercy and this grace have been 
procured for him by tle all-prevailing merits of the Redeemer, and 
that these blessings, offered to all, may be appropriated to the 
individual believer by that faith which the Holy Spirit will implant, 
and which must produce love and holiness and all good fruits, The 


1 Works, fol. Vol. 11. especially Ser- ὀ  ὀ * Faber’s Primitive Doctrine of Justifica- 
mons IV. Vv. tion. 

2 Waterland, On Justificotion, Works. ὃ Newman, On Justification; see espe- 
Van Mildert, 1x. p. 427. . cially Lect. 111. ΥἹ. Ix. 

8 Knox’s Remains. 


804 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. (Arr. ΧΙ. 


divines of Trent and their most extreme antagonists have denied 
none of these propositions. 





Sxcrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


1. eee of the word Justification. 

The word which we render just or righteous (namely, 
δίκαιος, or in the Hebrewpy7yz) has two principal significations: the 
one popular, the other accurate. In its popular signification, it is 
nearly equivalent to good, holy, pious, (dyabos, εὐσεβὴς, WDM) ; and 
is used commonly of men, who are living a pious and upright life, 
not according to the perfect standard of the law of God, but sub- 
ject to such imperfection and impurity as is common to man. Ex- 
amples of this usage may be found in the following, among many 
other passages: Gen. vi. 9. Ps. xxxvii. 12, Prov. iv. 18; xxiv. 
16. Matt. i. 19; x. 41; xxiii. 29. Mark vi. 20. Luke ii. 25. 
Acts x. 22. James v. 16. In its more accurate sense, δίκαιος sig- 
nifies absolutely, strictly, and perfectly righteous or just, without 
defect or impurity, like the holy Angels, or like God Himself. As 
for instance, in Job ix. 2, Matt. xxvii. 19. Luke xxiii. 47. Rom. 
ii. 13; iii. 10. 1 Tim. i. 9. In which, as in most similar pas- 
sages, the word particularly seems to express innocent, not guilty, 
with reference to a tribunal of justice, or question of crime. The 
same distinction is equally observable in the substantive righteous- 
ness (DTZ δικαιοσύνη) ; ; which at one time stands for strict and per- 
fect justice, (as in Acts xvii. 31. Rom. iii. 5. Rev. xix. 11, ἄς.) ; 
at other times for such goodness, holiness, or good deeds, as men 
under the grace of God are capable of (as in Ps. xv. 2. Isai. 
xxxiil. 17. Matt. v. 10, 20; vi. 88. Acts xiii. 10. Rom. vi. 18, 
19, 20; viii. 10; xiv. 17. Eph. v. 9; vi. 14. Heb. xii. 11). 

The verb δικαίοω, which strictly corresponds with the Hebrew 
causative verb pyqyr7, and is translated in English * to justify,” in 
some degree partakes of the ambiguity of the adjective, from which 
it is formed; yet, not so as, fairly considered, to introduce much 
difficulty into the doctrine of which we have to treat. 

1. The literal signification of the verb, whether in Hebrew or 
in Greek, is “to make righteous.” It may therefore, of course, be 
used for something like an infusion of righteousness into the mind 


Sec. 11. OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 805 


or character of a man; and the passive may signify the possession 
of that righteousness so infused ; and such a sense appears proba- 
bly to belong’to it in Rev. xxii. 11, “ He that is righteous, let him 
be righteous still” (6 δίκαιος δικαιωθήτω, in some MSS. from a gloss 
δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω.) 1 

2. But a very slight examination of the question can scarcely 
fail to convince us, that the commoner use of this verb in the 
Scriptures is in the sense of a judicial sentence ; and 

(1) It signifies to execute a judicial act, in the general, 
towards a person, and to do him right, whether in acquitting or 
in condemning him. Thus in 2 Sam. xv. 4: “Oh! that I were 
made a judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or 
cause might come unto me, (WNpPTETT καὶ δικαιώσω αὐτὸν} and I 
would justify him,” that is, do him right. 

So Ps. lxxxii. 3: “ Defend the poor and the futherless; justify 
ΟΠ στ δικαιώσατεν) the poor and needy,” ὁ. 6. do them right. 

(2) Especially it signifies to pronounce sentence in a man’s 
favour, acquit him, free him from punishment. Deut. xxv. 1: 
“The judges .... shall justify the righteous, and condemn the 
wicked.” : 

1 Kings viii. 32. 2 Chron. vi. 23: “ Then hear Thou in Heaven, 
and do, and judge Thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring 
his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him 
according to his righteousness.” 

Prov. xvii. 15: “ He that justifieth the wicked, and he that 
condemneth the just, even they both are abomination unto the 
Lord.” So Exod. xxiii. 7. Psalm li. 4. 

And so in the new Testament, Matt. xii. 837: “ By thy words 
thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” 
(7. ὁ. in the day of Judgment: see ver. 36). 

(3) In consequence of this sense of the word to justify, it is 
sometimes used in general for to approve or esteem a person just. 
So Matt. xi. 19, “" Wisdom is justified of her children.” In Luke x. 
29; xvi. 15, we read of people who ‘justified themselves.” Luke 
xviii. 14, “The publican went home justified,” (i. e. approved 
either by God or his own conscience, ) “ rather than the Pharisee.” 
Luke vii. 29, “ All the people justified God,” (. e. declared their 
approbation of God’s dealings in the mission of John,) ‘ being bap- 
tized with John’s baptism.” 


1 The following passages have also been Job xxxv.7,8. Ezek. xvi. 52. Ecclus 
thought to have the word in this sense, xviii. 22; xxxi. 5. 
but perhaps without sufficient ground: 
39 


B06 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Arr. XL 


(4) So again, to justify is used for to free from burdens or 
obligations, such as the obligations which a particular law imposes 
on us, as Rom. vi. 7, “‘ He that is dead is freed from sin” (literally 
is “justified,” δεδικαίωται). 

It appears, then, that in passages where the word “ to justify ἢ 
occurs with no particular reference to the doctrine of this Article, 
it is almost always used in a sense more or less connected with the 
ideas of acquittal, pardon, acceptance, or approbation: ὁ, 6. in a 
forensic or judicial sense. It remains to see, whether this is the — 
sense in which St. Paul uses it, when directly and especially treat- 
ing on justification by faith. Now this will appear, if we consider 
and compare the following passages. In Rom. v. 9, we read, “ Be- 
ing justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
Him.” With this compare Eph. i. 7, ‘in whom we have redemp- 
tion through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins.” Again, if we 
compare Rom. iii. 24, 25, 26, we cannot fail to conclude that justi- 
fication is a synonym for remission of sins. ‘ Being justified freely 
by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus ; 
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His 
blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, His right- 
eousness, that He might be just, and the justifier of him that 
believeth in Jesus.” 

Then the word justify is used as equivalent to count or impute 
righteousness and to cover sin. This appears plainly from Rom. iv. 
5, 6, 1. 

Again, by comparing Rom. v. 9 with Rom. v. 10, it seems. that 
to justify is synonymous with to reconcile with God; for πολλῷ 
μᾶλλον δικαιωθέντες, ““ much more being justified,” in the one verse, 
answers to πολλῷ μᾶλλον καταλλαγέντες, * much more being recon- 
ciled,”’ in the other. 

Once more, justification is directly opposed to condemnation, as 
in Rom. v. 18, “ By the offence of one (judgment came) upon all 
men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One (the 
free gift came) upon all men unto justification of life.” Again, in 


1 It has been argued, (Bellarm. De Jus- 
tif. 1, 2, ὁ. 8,) that as, Adam’s sin was in- 
Hise into his posterity, so this passage 
must mean that in justification Christ’s 
righteousness is infused into His disciples. 
To which it has been replied, (Barrow, 
tm: Sermon v. p. 80.) that. justifica- 
tion and condemnation being “ both acts 
of God, and it being plain that God con- 


demning doth not infuse any inherent 
unrighteousness into man, neither doth 
He justifying (formally) (if the antithesis 
must be pat) put any inherent righteous- 
ness into him: inherent unrighteousness 
in the former case may be a consequent of 
that condemnation, and inherent right- 
eousness may be connected with this 
justification; but neither that nor this 


Sec IL] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 307 


Rom. viii. 33, 34, “* Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s 
elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?”* 

But which is more important than the comparison of particular 
passages, if we consider the whole course of St. Paul’s reasoning 
in the earlier chapters of the Romans, we must be led to conclude 
that by justification he means acquittal from guilt and acceptance 
with God. He begins by proving that all men, Jews and Gentiles, 
are condemned by the law (whether of Moses or of nature) under 
which they lived (Rom. i. ii.) He shows from the Law itself that 
the Jews as well as the Gentiles were guilty before God (Rom. iii. 
9-19); and that therefore all the world (if the Gospel be not 
taken into account) are lying under God’s wrath and subject to 
His condemnation. And this course of reasoning leads him to the 
conclusion, that if we would have justification at all it must be not 
by the works of law, but by the faith of Christ (Rom. iii. 20). 
Now in such a connection, what must justification mean? Man 
subject to the law (whether revealed or natural) had so much sinned 
as to be subject to condemnation. The thing to be desired was 
his justification ; which justification could be only by the free grace 
of God through Christ. Surely then that justification must mean 
pardon for the sins which he had committed, and deliverance from 
the condemnation into which his sins had thrown him. 

This is further shown immediately afterwards by the case’ and 
the language of saints of the old Testament. Abraham was justi- 
fied (or as it is explained, “ accounted righteous’) by faith, not by 
his own good works and deservings. And David looks on a state 
of blessedness as one in which a man has “ his iniquities forgiven, 
and his sins covered” (Rom. iv. 1-8). The thing then which all 
the world needed, and which could be obtained only through God’s 
mercy in Christ, was covering of sin, and forgiveness. of iniquity. 
This therefore must be what St. Paul. means by the term -Justifi- 
cation. 


Il. Sense of the word Faith. 


Having arrived at a conclusion as to the sense of the words jus- 


may formally signify those qualities re- 
spectively: as the inherent unrighteous- 
ness consequent upon Adam’s sin is not 
included in God’s condemning, so neither 
is the inherent righteousness proceeding 
from our Saviour’s obedience contained 
in God’s justifying men.” 

1 The antithesis is not in the least de- 
gree altered, if the punctuation and trans- 


lation of this passage, which is more 
probably correct, be adopted. Τίς éyxa- 
λέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ ; Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν ; 
τίς ὁ κατακρίνων ; Χριστὸς ὁ ἀποϑανὼν, x. τὶ. 
λ.: “ Who shall lay anything to the 
charge of God’s elect ? Shall God who 
justifieth? Who is he that condemneth 1 
Is it Christ, who died, &c. ?” 


308 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. (Arr. XL 


tify and justification, it becomes necessary, in order to appreciate 
the meaning of the words Justification by faith, and the doctrine 
expressed by those words, to examine the usages of the term faith 
in Scripture, and especially in the writings of St. Paul. 

According to its derivation the word should mean persuasion of 
the truth of anything. But this does not decide its force as a theo- 
logical virtue, still less its signification in the peculiar language of 
St. Paul. There can be little doubt that it is used in very differ- 
ent senses in different parts of Scripture. 

For example : — 

1. It is used to signify truth or good faith (like nes fides) in 
Matt. xxiii, 28, “the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, 
mercy, and faith ;” and in Rom. iii. 3: ‘* Shall their unbelief make 
the faith (or faithfulness) of God without effect ?” 

2. It is used of the assurance given by one person to another, 
Acts xvii. 31, “whereof He hath given assurance unto all men” 
(τίστιν παράσχων πᾶσι). 

8. It is used as a term to designate the Christian Religion, * the 
faith’ or “‘ the faith of Christ.”” So Acts vi. 7, ‘* were obedient to 
the faith.” Acts xiii. 8, “seeking to turn away the deputy from 
the faith.” Rom. i. 5, “for obedience to the faith among all na- 
tions,” εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι (7. 6. to convert all na- 
tions to the Christian Religion). So xvi. 26. Comp. Eph. iii. 17; 
iv. 5. Phil. i. 25. 1 Tim. iv. 1. Tit. i. 1,4. James ii. 1, 
Jude, 8, 20. Rev. ii. 18; xiv. 12. In this sense St. Paul appears 
especially to use it in his Epistle to the Galatians; where perhaps 
we may consider, that in his constant antithesis of Law and Faith, 
he is contrasting the Law of Moses, or the Religion of the Jews, 
with the Faith of Christ, or the Religion of the Gospel. Some of 
the more obvious usages of the word in this sense in the Epistle to 
the Galatians are in the following: Gal. i. 23, “ now preacheth the 
faith which once he destroyed,” iii. 23, “* Before faith came (πρὸ τοῦ 
δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν), we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the 
faith which should afterwards be revealed ”’ (εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν ἀποκα- 
λυφθῆναι πίστιν). The same sense is apparent in the whole context 
(vv. 24, 25, 26); where it is taught us, that both Jews and Gen- 
tiles become children of God by the faith (¢. 6. by embracing the 
religion or Gospel) of Jesus Christ, having put on Christ by being 
baptized into Him. 

Accordingly, Gal. vi. 10, we read of Christians as being οἰκεῖοι 
τῆς πίστεως, servants of the Gospel, domestics of the Christian faith.! 

1 So Pals] is used for “true religion,” Ps. ἰχχχνὶ. 11. 


Sec. IT] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 309 


4. There are passages in the Epistles in which it seems plain 
that faith is spoken of as separable from its results, as an assent to 
Christian truth without the heart being duly moved by it, and so 
the life corresponding with it. That is to say, faith is er in that 
sense which the schoolmen called fides informis. 

Thus St. Peter (2 Pet. i. 5) bids men “ add to their faith virtue” 
and all other Christian graces, as though faith might be considered 
vas apart from other graces. St. Paul. (1 Cor. xiii. 2) speaks of a 
faith strong enough to move mountains, and yet capable of being 
conceived of as without charity, and so of no value; and in the 
same chapter (ver. 13) speaks of faith, hope, charity, as three dis- 
tinct graces, two of which shall pass away, and one, namely, char- 
ity, shall abide ; and declares this charity to be the greatest of the 
three. Especially St. James (ii. 14-26) considers the case of faith 
without works, and declares such a faith unable to justify. 

5. Yet, on the other hand, since it is the nature of faith to 
open the eye of the mind to things spiritual, and to bring home to 
it the view of Heaven, and hell, of God’s justice and mercy, of 
man’s liability to judgment, and Christ’s Atonement and Media- 
tion ; therefore it is most commonly spoken of as an operative and 
active principle, ‘* purifying the heart”? (Acts xv. 9), and “ work- 
ing by love” (Gal. v. 6). Accordingly, in Heb. xi. St. Paul at- 
tributes to the energy of faith all the holiness and heroism of the 
saints and martyrs in times of old. 

6. Especially, as the principal subjects of God’s revelations are 
His promises, therefore faith came to mean πεποίθησις, fiducia, 
reliance on the truth of God’s promises, or trust in His mercy and 
grace. 

Of such a nature was that faith which gave men strength to ben- 
efit by the miraculous powers of Christ and His Apostles, Matt. ix. 
2, 22: “ Thy faith hath made thee whole.” Acts xiv. 9, St. Paul 
perceived that the cripple at Lystra “had faith to be healed.” See 
also, Matt. viii. 16 ; ix. 29; xvii. 20; xxi.21. Mark ii. 5; iv. 40; 
v. 84; x. 52; xi. 22. Luke v. 20; vii. 9; viii. 25, 48; xvii. 5, 
6; xviii. 42. Acts iii. 16. Jam. v. 15. 

So St. James speaks of ‘praying in faith, nothing wavering ”’ 
(James i. 6), that is, praying in a spirit of trust in God and reliance 
on His promises. St. Peter (1 Pet. v. 9) tells us to resist the devil 
‘¢stedfast in the faith,” ὦ. 6. steadily relying on the help of God. 
Of such a nature seems to be “the shield of faith ” (Eph. vi. 16), 
which can ‘* quench the fiery darts of the wicked one.” So we read 
of ‘faith and patience,” of ‘the patience and faith of the saints,” 


810 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. (Arr. XL 


(Rev. ii. 19; xiii. 10), evidently signifying their resignation and 
trust in God under trials and afflictions. So perhaps we may say 
that in the above-cited eleventh of Hebrews, faith is represented as 
a full conviction that what God had promised He was able and will- 
ing to perform ; hence a trust or reliance on God’s truth and prom- 
ises, by which men overcame earthly temptations and difficulties, 
despised the world, and fought a good fight. See especially vv. 
10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 26, 27. 

Thus much of faith generally. The question next arises, In 
what sense does St. Paul use the word when he speaks of faith as 
justifying ? [5 justifying faith a bare historical assent? Is it but 
a synonym for the religion of Christ? Is it trust and confidence 
in God? Is it to be considered, as full of its fruits and lively in its 
operation, or apart from all such, or at least prior to them ? 

Let us examine those passages of Scripture, whether St. Paul’s 
or not, in which it is certain or probable that faith and justification 
are considered together, and see what attributes are assigned to 
the faith so spoken of. 

Justifying faith then is : — 

1. The work and gift of God. ᾿ 

Matt. xvi. 17. John vi. 29, 44, 45. Phil. i. 29. 

2. The character of the regenerate. 

Compare Gal. v. 6, with Gal. vi. 15; whence it will appear that 
regeneration and justifying faith are used convertibly, 

8. The sign of regeneration. 

1 John v. 1: “" Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
born of God,” his faith being the proof of his regeneration. 

4. It is seated in the heart, not merely in the understanding. 

Rom. x. 10: “ With the heart man believeth unto righteous- 
ness.” 

5. Is not dead. i 

See James ii. 14-26; which proves clearly that, if faith is dead 
and so without works, it does not profit. 

6. But, on the contrary, is a full conviction of the truth of God’s 
promises and reliance on them. 

See Heb. xi. 19, where Abraham’s faith, when he offered up 
Isaac, is described as an ‘accounting that God was able to raise 
him up even from the dead ;’’ which is the very example adduced 
by St. Paul, when he is specially treating on the subject of justify- 
ing faith (Rom. iy. 18-20), and by St. James, when he is rectify- 
‘ing errors on the same important subject (James ii. 23, ἄς.) 

7. It worketh by love. 


Sec. 111 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 811 


Gal. v. 6; where we read that that which “ availeth”’ (i. ὃ. jus-- 
tifieth) “ἴῃ Christ Jesus,” is “ faith which worketh by love.” 

8. Accordingly it sanctifies. 

Acts xxvi. 18: “" That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and 
inheritance among them which are ΟΝ by faith that is in Me.” 

9. It purifies the heart. 

Acts xv. 9: ‘ Purifying their hearts by faith, δ 

10. It overcomes the world. 

1 John v. 4: “This is the victory that overcometh the world, 
even our faith.” ; 

Compare Hebrews xi., throughout the whole of which we have 
a description of faith as that which overcomes the world. And 
with this again compare (as before) Rom. iv.; where the same "ἡ 
kind of reasoning is used, and the same example adduced concern- 
ing justifying faith, as in Heb. xi. concerning faith in the general. 

11. It is evidently connected with its results, and by a kind of 
synecdoche considered as containing them,! or pregnant with them. 

This will plainly appear, if we examine the three passages in 
which Abraham’s faith is said to have been imputed to him for 
righteousness, 7. 6. to have been justifying. 

Those three passages are Gen. xv. 6. Rom. iv. James ii. 21-23, 
to which may be added Heb. xi. 8-10. 

In Gen. xv. we read of God’s promise to Abraham, that he 
should have a son in his old age, whose seed should be as the stars 
of heaven for multitude. And unlikely as this was, and against 
all natural probability, Abraham “believed in the Lord; and He 
counted it to him for righteousness,” ver. 6. 

In Rom. iv. St. Paul quotes this instance of Abraham’s faith, and 
illustrates it thus (ver: 18-22): ‘“* Who against hope believed in — 
hope, that he might become the father of many nations ; according 
to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being ποῦ 
weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he 
was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of 
Sarah’s womb ; he staggered not at the promise of God through 
unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being 
fully persuaded that what He had promised He was able also to 
perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” 

Now St. James (ii. 21-23) reasons on the subject thus: * Was 
not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered 
Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with — 
his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scrip- 


1 See Barrow. 


812 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Arr. XL 


ture was fulfilled which saith, Abraliam believed God, and it was 
imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend 
of God.” 

And similar effects of his faith St. Paul himself speaks of, Heb. 
xi, 8: “ By faith, Abraham, when he was called to go out into a 
place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed ; and 
he went out, not knowing whither he went.” 

See also verses-9-12. 

From all which passages it is sufficiently apparent, that when 
the Scriptures speak of the faith of Abraham, which justified him, 
they understand by it a faith of such nature that a man is per- 
suaded by it to disregard all earthly considerations, and to resign 
‘ himself, contrary to all his worldly interests, to obedient conformity 
with the will of God. 

12. As it was seen of faith in general, that it had special refer- 
ence to the promises and mercies of God, so it will be found that 
justifying faith has special reference to the Person, sufferings, and 
mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to God’s promises in Him. 
For example, John iii. 14, 15: “* As Moses lifted up the serpent in 
the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that 
whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal 
life.” John vi. 40: ‘ This is the will of Him that sent Me, 
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may 
have everlasting life.” Ver. 47: ‘ Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.” Acts x. 43: 
‘Through His Name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive 
remission of sins.”’ xvi. 81: ““ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”’ Rom. iii. 25, 26: ** Whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, 
to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, His 
righteousness, that He might be just, and the justifier of Him which 
believeth in Jesus.” x. 9: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth 
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath 
raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”’ See also John i. 
12; iii, 16, 18, 86; v. 245 vi. 29, 85; xi. 25,26; xvi. 27; xvii. 
25. Acts xiii. 88, 89; xx. 21. Rom. iii..22; iv. 5, 24; x. 4. 
Philem. 5. 1 Johniii. 23; v. 1. 

So much indeed is this the character of faith, (at least of that 
active faith which, as we have seen, is the faith which justifies, ) 
that by it Christ is said to dwell in the heart. Ephes. iii. 17: 
“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.”” And so it not 


Src. 111 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 313 


only has reference to the work of Christ for us, but it is both the 
proof of Christ’s dwelling in us, and the instrument whereby He 
dwells in us. 


III. General View of Justification in Scripture. 

Having premised thus much concerning the meaning attached 
to the term Justification, and to the grace of justifying faith, by the 
inspired writers in the new Testament, we may now perhaps pro- 
ceed to state more fully and formally the doctrine of Scripture 
concerning justification, or pardon and acceptance with God. 

In the general, then, we may state concerning the justification 
of man, that 

1. The moving cause is God’s. mercy. 

2. The meritorious cause is Christ’s Atonement. 

But we know, that, notwithstanding the infinite mercy of God, 
and the fulness and all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, yet all 
men do not benefit by this grace. Therefore we learn that there 
is need of something internal to connect with the external work 
of our salvation; Christ in the heart connecting with Christ on 
the cross; the work of the Spirit to be united to the work of the 
Redeemer. Hence 

3. The immediate efficient cause is the Holy Spirit, who moves 
the heart by His influences, leads to Christ, regenerates and re- 
news. 

4, The first instrument by which God conveys pardon, under | 
ordinary circumstances, is Baptism. Hence this is the first instru- 
ment of justification. This will appear from the following. 

Even John’s baptism (a fortiori Christ’s) was a “baptism of 
repentance for the remission of sins,” ὁ. 6. for justification. Mark 
i. 4. Luke iii. 8. When our Lord instituted His baptism, it was 
with the promise that all who so far believed the preaching of the 
Apostles as to embrace the faith of Christ and be baptized into it, 
ἐς should be saved,” Mark xvi. 16. When the Apostles were asked 
by their converts what they should do, they replied, ‘ Repent, and 
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
_ remission of sins,” Acts ii. 37, 38. After St. Paul’s conversion to 
the faith, Ananias called on him to “ arise and be baptized, and wash 
away his sins,”’ Acts xxii. 16. 

The Apostle couples being “washed” with “sanctified and 
justified,” 1 Cor. vi. 11; speaks of the Church as “ cleansed with 
the washing of water,’ Eph. v. 26; and places the “ washing of 
regeneration’ as a synonym or parallel with the ‘ being justified,” 

40 


814 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. (Arr. XL 


Tit. iii. 5, 7. See likewise Rom. vi. 4, 7. Col. ii. 12,14. 1 Pet. 
iii. 21, &e. 

Baptism is that which places us ina state of covenant with God, 
and hence, in St. Paul’s words, is that in which “we put on 
Christ,” and are esteemed “the children of God by the faith in 
Christ,” Gal. iii. 26, 27. Hence a person receiving baptism is put 
in a position to receive from God the gifts which He has covenanted 
to give to us in His Son; and the first of those gifts is acceptance 
into His favour and remission of our sins, that is, justification. 

5. The state of heart in which a man must be, who is accepted 
ΠΟΥ justified, is a state of faith, Rom. x. 10. Eph. iii. 117. Accord- 
ingly, when justification is considered subjectively, or as connected 
with the state of the Christian’s heart, the instrument is said to be 
faith. Faith, therefore, may be considered either as the instrument, 
or as the state of justification. 

6. When a man is said by St. James to be justified by works ; 
it is not because his works procure him acceptance meritoriously, 
but because they are the sign, and fruit, and necessary results of 
that sanctification by the Spirit which unites him to the Atonement 
of Christ, and are the necessary and inseparable concomitants — or, 
in fact, parts — of his faith, as much as light is part of the sun, or 
fruit is part of the tree which bears it. 

Such may be fairly considered as a general view of the doctrine 
of justification as commonly taught in Scripture. But in order to 
a full investigation of this question, it is necessary to understand 
the peculiar signification attached by St. Paul to what may be con- 
sidered his favorite formula, namely : — 


IV. Justification by faith. 

Now it is quite clear that St. Paul’s great object in the Epistle 
to the Romans was to put down all claims on the part of man to 
reward, for services done by him to God. Accordingly, in the first 
three chapters he shows all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, to be 
sinners, and so deserving, not justification or acquittal, but condem- 
nation. His conclusion is, that if we are saved, it must be by the 
merits of Christ or by free grace only ; without any claims on our 
part on the score of desert. This truth he expresses under the 
formula of ‘ Justification by faith.” 

Hence we conclude, that, in the language of St. Paul, “ justi- 
fication by faith,” and ‘ free salvation by grace,” are (as it has been 
seen that Melancthon, the Confession of Augsburg, and our own 
Article and Homilies, teach) correlative or convertible expressions. 
The former means the latter. 


Sxc. II.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 315 


That this is the case will appear more plainly, if we read con- 
nectedly but a very few of the passages in which St. Paul espe- 
cially propounds his doctrine of justification, 6. g. Rom. ili. 23, 24, 
28: “ All have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being 
justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in 
Christ Jesus, whom, &c. . . . therefore we conclude, that a man 
is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” 

Eph. ii. 8: “ΒΥ grace are ye saved through faith,” &c. 

Tit. iii. 4, 5, 7: ** After that the kindness and love of God our 
Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which 
we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us . . . that 
being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to 
the hope of eternal life.” 

So Rom. iv. 25; v. 1, 9, 16, 20, 21, compared together, 
clearly show the same thing. ‘* Who was delivered for our 
offences, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore, 
being justified by faith, we have peace with God,” Rom. iv. 25; 
v. 1. ‘Much more then, being now justified by His Blood, we 
shall be saved from wrath through Him,” v. 9. ‘ The judgment 
was by one to condemnation ; but the free gift is of many offences 
unto justification,’ ver. 16. ‘* Where sin abounded, grace did 
much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even 80. 
might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
Christ,” vv. 20, 21. 

But although we may readily come to the conclusion that 
justification by faith is little more than a synonymous expression 
for justification or salvation by free grace; yet we can scarcely 
doubt, that there is something in the nature of faith which espe- 
cially qualifies it to be put in a formula to denote grace in opposition 
to claims. 

Now this would be the case, if fazth in the argument of the 
Epistle to the Romans meant nothing more than “ the Christian 
Religion ;”” which it sometimes appears to mean, especially in the 
Epistle to the Galatians. For, as the religion of Christ is that 
by embracing which we embrace God’s offers and promises of 
pardon, it might naturally be put to represent those promises and 
that grace by which pardon is given. But we can hardly conclude 
that this is the signification of justifying faith in the Epistle to the 
_ Romans ; because St. Paul especially adduces the case of Abraham, 
as a subject of justifying faith (Rom. iv..1, &.). But Abraham 
could no more have been considered as justified by the Gospel or 
the religion of Christ, than any other person under the old dis- 


B16 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN.  [Anrr. XI 


pensation ; and could not have been spoken of, as living under the 
Gospel, in opposition to such as lived under the Law. 

It should appear, therefore, that it is not Christ’s religion, con- 
sidered as a whole, which is meant bythe Apostle when he speaks 
of justifying faith ; but that it is that special religious grace which 
is called faith, and the qualities of which we have lately investi- 
gated. Accordingly we must search for something in the nature 
of faith itself, or of its objects, which renders it fit to be put in the 
formula of St. Paul, as the representative of grace, and as opposed 
to self-justifying claims. 

1. First then, faith is a state of heart in witel a man is, and 
is not an enumeration of so many works or good deeds, which a 
man has done, and for which he may be supposed to claim reward. 
It therefore fitly and naturally represents a state of grace, in con- 
tradistinction to a state of claim, or self-justification. It is that 
state in which a man is who is regenerate, and so in union with 
Christ. Yet at the same time, as in the case of the penitent thief 
upon the cross, it may exist even before it can have brought 
forth external good works, and therefore obviously cannot recom- 
mend us to God on the score of meritorious services, which we 
have rendered to Him. It is therefore the symbol of acceptance 
by free mercy, apart from human claims. 

2. Next, its character is to rely on the power and promise’ of 
God, and not on the strength or works of man. For the eye of 
faith, seeing Him who is invisible, contrasts His power with its 
own weakness. Hence it becomes nearly identified with trust 
( fiducia). Such emphatically was the character of Abraham’s 
faith, so specially referred to by the Apostle, which led him to 
leave his country and sacrifice his son, because ‘he counted Him 
faithful who had promised.” Hence faith becomes a fit symbol 
for renunciation of claims and ΗΝ and trust in God’s mercy 
and pardoning g grace. 

8. Faith is, perhaps even more than other graces, clearly and 
obviously the gift of God. We know that we cannot force or con- 
trol our own ΤῊΣ and therefore feel that we require the eyes of 
our understanding to be enlightened by inspiration from above. 
Therefore again faith is less likely than other graces to be made a 
ground for boasting. 

4. Lastly, although this may not be its exclusive object, yet. 
its peculiar and principal object is Christ, and His Atonement and 
Mediation. Hence, according to Luther, faith is * full of Christ.” 
Hence, according to a greater than Luther, ‘ Christ dwells in our 


Sec. ΠῚ OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 817 


hearts by faith.” Hence faith, leading to Christ and looking to 
Christ, is, by a natural transition, spoken of in Scripture as if it 
were invested with attributes which are really above it, and as 
though it effected that of which it is but the instrument, and 
whose cause and Author is God in Christ. 

To the belief indeed, that justifying faith, as spoken of by 
St. Paul, means merely a reliance on the Atonement, the often- 
adduced instance of Abraham seems at first sight opposed. For 
Abraham, whom St. Paul brings forward as the type of justifying 
faith, is not spoken of as having full confidence in the pardoning 
grace of Christ; but his faith, in the instance alluded to (Gen. xv. 
5, 6), had reference to God’s promise, that his seed should be as 
numerous as the stars of Heaven. It was this faith that was 
counted to him for righteousness; and, though it may be argued 
that there was in this promise of God concerning his offspring 
virtually contained a promise of the Messiah; yet it can hardly | 
be said, that Abraham’s belief that God would multiply his seed, 
meant a belief that he should himself be saved by the merits of 
Christ, and that, on this account, it was justifying faith. 

We must then probably infer that some of the general charac- 
ters of faith above referred to, rendered Abraham acceptable to 
God; and that so his faith was counted for righteousness. And 
this consideration certainly causes some little difficulty in our appre- 
ciation of the doctrine laid down by St. Paul. Still, if we examine 
the whole of his reasoning in the first five chapters of the Epistle Ὁ 
to the Romans, we shall find that the great object on which he 
speaks of the Christian’s faith as fixed is the work of Christ, and 
God’s acceptance of us in Him. Even where he adduces the 
example of Abraham, and insists that Abraham was justified, not 
by his own merits, but by his faith; he concludes, that, in like 
manner, faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness, “if we 
believe in Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who 
was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification ” 
(Rom. iv. 24, 25). And the following chapter is all devoted to 
considering the reparation which the righteousness of Christ has 
made for the ruin which Adam’s sin had produced. 

It appears, therefore, that the faith of Abraham must have been 
alleged, rather as illustrative of, than as identical with, the faith of 
the Christian. It was of the same kind with the Christian’s faith, 
Ἢ so far as ull faith has the same general characters, and has 
therefore a similar acceptableness with God. But the peculiar 
faith of the Christian is that by which he apprehends Christ. As 


818 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 


the High-priest laid his hand upon the head of the scapegoat, and by 
confessing, conveyed the sins of the congregation to the sea 
that they might be taken away, so the believer lays his hand on 
the Head of the Great Sacrifice. He believes in the Redeemer of 
the world, and in God’s love through Him. His soul rests upon 
his Saviour. His faith therefore is a bond of union with the 
incarnate Godhead ; and so becomes the instrumental cause of jus- 
tification in us; the meritorious cause of which is all in Christ. 
And on this ground most especially it seems, that the Apostle, 
when labouring to show that human merit and human efforts must 
fail to bring us to God, and to render us acceptable to Him, pro- 
duces, and insists so strongly on his peculiar statement of “ Justi- 
fication by faith.” } 


(Arr. XL 


V. Certain questions on the Doctrine of Justification. 

1. Is justification an act or a state ? 

Some persons have decided that it is an act, taking place at a 
particular moment, never to be repeated. Others, that it is a state, 
which continues or is lost, as the case may be. 

If it be the former, it must be limited either (1) to baptism, 
when, as has been shown, there is promise of remission of sins ; 
or (2) to the moment which may be considered as the turning- 
point from a life of sin to a life of repentance, faith, and holiness, — 
a moment known only to God; or (3) to the day of Judgment, 
when the wicked shall be condemned, and the pious shall be ab- 
solved or justified. Either or all of these may be considered as 
the moment of transition from condemnation to justification, or 
pardon and acceptance. ' . 

But Scripture seems rather to represent justification, as a state 
of acceptance before God. It is quite certain, that some persons 
are represented as in favour, grace, or acceptance with God, that 
is justified ; others as under His wrath, and liable to condemnation. 
The prophet Ezekiel (xxxiii. vv. 12-19) contrasts the condition 


1 This is excellently expressed in the 
following passage from Cardinal Toletus 
(in cap. iii. ad Roman. annot. 17) quoted 
by Bp. Forbes, Considerationes Modest 
de Justificatione, Lib. 1. 6. 111. § 17 : — 

Quia nempe in fide magis manifestatur, 
hominem non propria virtute, sed Christi 
merito justificari: sicut enim in aspectu 
in serpentem Deus posuit sanitatem in 
deserto, quia aspectus magis indicabat, 
sanari virtute serpentis, non operis alicu- 
jus proprii aut medicine alicujus; ita 

es ostendit, justificari peccatores vir- 


tute et merito Christi, in quam credentes 
salvi fiunt, non propria ipsorum virtute 
et.merito. Ea causa est cur fidei tribui- 
tur (justificatio) maxime a S. Paulo quia 
justificatione legis opera et humanum 
meritum aut efficaciam excludere, et in 
sola Christi virtute et merito collocare 
nitebatur : idcirco meminit fidei in Chris- 
tum. Hoc nec peenitentia nee dilectio 
nec spes habent. Fides enim immedia- 
tius ac distinctius in Eum fertur, cujus 
virtute justificamur. 


Src. IL] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 819 


of the righteous and the wicked, showing the one to be a condition 
of acceptance, the other of condemnation: the former continuing 
so long as the character continues the same, and lost as soon as that 
character is lost; the latter in like manner continuing, until the 
wickedness is forsaken and the life renewed, and then giving place 
to the former, the condition of favour or pardon.’ In like manner 
our Lord (John xv. 1-10) speaks of His disciples as clean through 
His word, and continuing so whilst they abide in Him ; but if they 
abide not in Him, then to be cast forth as a branch, withered, and 
even burned (see especially vv. 3-6). Language just similar to 
this is used by St. Paul (see Rom. vi. 1, 2, 19; xi. 20, 21. Gal. νυ. 
4. Col. i. 22, 23. Heb. x. 38, 39). From all which we can 
hardly fail to conclude that justification before God is a state in 
which a person continues so long as he continues united to Christ, 
abiding in Him, having Christ dwelling in his heart, being the sub- 
ject of His grace, and of the sanctification of the Spirit. 

If therefore the premises are correct, we may define justification 
to be a state of pardon and acceptance in the presence of God, be- 
stowed upon us freely for Christ’s sake, by the mercy of God, which 
is first given in baptism to all who receive that sacrament aright, 
which continues so long as the subject continues in a state of faith, 
which fails when he falls from the state of faith, and which is 
restored again when by grace and repentance he is restored to a 
state of faith. So that we may say, whilst in a state of faith, so 
long in a state of justification: whilst a believer, so long a justified 
person. Hence too, concerning the distinction drawn by Luther, 
that faith is alone when it justifies, and that after justification is 
effected, then come in charity, and good works, and holiness, we 
may infer that such a distinction can be true only when considered 
in the abstract, but not as a matter of practical experience. For 
practically and really, where there is acceptance, there is faith and 
sanctification, and, springing from them and reigning with them, 
are all the graces of a Christian’s life. 

2. It having been laid down, that faith (feta operibus) may 
be considered, either as the state or the instrument of justification, 
it may be a question, whether we ought to say that faith, or faith 
and good works, or faith and holiness, are the condition or condi 
tions rot justification. 

The answer to this question, as given by many divines of high 
authority in the Church, has been in the affirmative. But the 
question is, whether or not we can deduce an affirmative answer 
from the Scripture. No doubt, faith and holiness are, as regards 


320 OF THE JUSTIFICATION’ OF MAN. (Arr. XL 


justification, graces sine quibus non. There is no justification nor 
salvation where there is not faith, love, holiness, obedience. But 
when we state that faith and good works are conditions, we in effect 
suppose the Almighty to offer us what have been called the Terms 
of the Gospel; terms that is of the following kind: “ Now that 
by Christ’s mediation God’s wrath has been appeased, if you will 
repent, believe, and obey, you shall be saved.” Conditions imply 
a bargain of this kind. Now there may be no objection to looking 
on the matter in some such light as this; but it does not appear to 
be the form in which the Scriptures represent God’s dealings with 
us. The new Testament seems to speak of us as pensioners on 
the bounty of God’s grace. Especially when justification by faith 
is spoken of, “it is of faith, that it might be by grace,” Rom. iv. 16. 
And though it is true that it would be an act of immeasurable 
grace for God to pardon our past sins, on condition that, by His 
help, we avoided sin and lived holily for the future, yet this does 
not appear to be the statement anywhere made by the Apostles ; 
nor does such an act of grace come up to the standard of that 
infinite mercy of God in Christ Jesus, which is revealed to us in 
the Gospel. It has already been shown that one peculiar reason 
why justification by faith represents free. salvation by grace is, 
that faith is itself most clearly “the gift of God.” Therefore it is 
spoken of as the instrument of our justification, not because it is 
a condition, which we can make with Him, but because it is itsélf 
a gift which He bestows on us. 

Besides, if we could make conditions with God, even after He 
had accepted an atonement for the past, it might be hard to say 
that “ boasting” was altogether ‘¢ excluded ” (Rom. iii. 27). Ex- 
cluded indeed it might be in strict justice, because the forgiving of 
past sins, and the accepting of imperfect obedience for the future, 
would be, of itself, an act of boundless grace, when we deserve noth- 
ing but condemnation. But still, comparing ourselves with ourselves, 
we might easily be inclined to feel proud of even imperfect obedi- 
ence, if it were made the condition of our salvation. Therefore, 
we may perhaps fairly conclude, that salvation is not of works, not 
merely not as the cause, but not even as the terms or conditions of 
our justification. Nor is faith itself the condition on which God 
accepts us, although it is the instrument by which He justifies us, 
and the state in which we are when justified. 

8. Whereas it is taught by St. Paul that a man is justified by 
faith, and yet it is taught both by St. Paul and throughout 
the new Testament that we shall be judged according to our 


Sxc. IL] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 321 


works, + are we driven to conclude that there is an inconsistency 
in the statements of Scripture ? 

The answer to this is, that as all persons who are justified are 
regenerate and in a state of faith, their faith and regeneration will 
necessarily be to them the source of holiness and good works. Now 
the clearest tokens both to men and angels of their internal condi- 
tion of faith and sanctification must be their good works; nay, the 
clearest proof even to themselves. Hence, that they should be 
judged by their works, and rewarded according to their works, is 
thoroughly consistent with God’s dispensations. The meritorious 
cause indeed of their salvation is Christ’s Atonement; the instru- 
ment by which they are brought into covenant with God is bap- 
tism ; the means whereby their state of acceptance is maintained is 
faith ; but the criterion by which their final state will be deter- 
mined shall be works. And all these are so knit up together in 
the redeemed, regenerate, believing, sanctified Christian, that: it is 
nowise derogating from the excellence of the one to ascribe its 
proper office, in the economy of salvation, to the other. 

4, The ordinary instruments of justification being baptism and 
faith, can a person be justified where either of these is want- 
ing ? 

That persons can be justified without faith where faith is im- 
possible, may appear from the case of infants. Though they are 
too young for active faith, yet clearly are they not so for salvation, 
nor therefore for justification. Our Lord. bids us bring little 
children to Him, and says that “ of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” 
(Mark x. 14). And St. Paul says, the children of believing par- 
ents are holy (1 Cor. vii. 14). And if infant baptism be a custom 
for which we have sufficient authority, then, as baptism is for the 
remission of sins, it follows that infants in baptism may receive 
- remission of sins or justification, though not yet capable of faith. 
Similar reasoning is applicable to the case. of idiots, or persons 
otherwise irresponsible, who, like infants, are incapable of active 
faith, but of whom we may reasonably hope that they are not 
incapable of salvation. As regards baptism, that, as a general rule, 
it is the ordinance of God, without which we cannot look for the 
promises of God, is quite apparent from passages already referred 
to, such as Mark xvi. 16. Acts xxii. 16. Gal. iii. 26, 27, ὅς. In 
these and similar passages remission of sins is promised to such as 
believe the Gospel, and submit to baptism. Yet, as we have seen 


1 See, for instance, Matt. xvi. 27; Rom. ii. 6; 1 Cor. iii. 8; 2 Cor. ν. 10; 1 Peter 
i. 17; Rev. ii. 28, xx. 18, xxii. 12. 


41 


\ pe rd 8). ΝΣ —_— ae 
"ἫΝ . ἥν εὐ os 


6 
1922 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Arr. ΧΙ. 


‘concerning faith, that though generally necessary, yet cases may 
and do exist where it is impossible, and so not required, in like 
‘tanner we may reasonably conclude that cases may exist in which 
‘baptism may be dispensed with. Though Christ has appointed 
‘baptism, and we have no right to look for His blessing if we 
‘neglect it, yet we cannot presume to limit His mercy even by His 
own ordinances. Indeed, we find in the Acts of the Apostles (x. 4, 
44) a case, the case of Cornelius, in which God accepted and poured 
‘His Holy Spirit on a person who had not been baptized; and 
though St. Peter thought it necessary that baptism should be at 
once administered to him, and thereby taught us the deep value of 
‘that Sacrament, still this case sufficiently shows that God does at 
‘times work without the intervention of means appointed by Him- 
self, and therefore teaches us that we must not exclude from 
‘salvation those who, from ignorance or inability, have not received 
‘the blessing of baptism. 

5. Is the language of, St. James opposed to the doctrine of St. 
Paul ? 

It has been already seen that St. Paul means by Justification by 
‘faith, free salvation by God’s grace ; and that, where he speaks of 
faith as the instrument of justification, he means a lively faith, pro- 
ductive of good works. (See especially Rom. vi.) St. James 
‘probably wrote against such as abused the doctrine of St. Paul, and 
taught that a speculative barren faith, or mere orthodoxy, was suffi- 
cient for salvation without the fruits of faith. Accordingly, he 
asks, “" Can this faith save him?” He says, “ Faith, if it have not 
‘works, is dead, being alone.” But it must be observed that St. 
‘Paul never speaks of ἃ dead faith as profiting. On the contrary, 
he declares that faith without charity would be nothing (1 Cor. xiii. 
2). It is plain, therefore, that St. Paul considers faith as pregnant 
with its results, though not as jestifying because of its results, and 
does not design to put in opposition to one another faith and the 


Ἵ James ii. 14, 17. 

Many people have endeavoured to rec- 
oncile St. Paul and St. James, by rs. Se 
‘ing that the former speaks of justifica- 

_ tion before God, the latter of justification 
in'the sight of men. But itis quite clear 
that St. James speaks of the same kind 
of eye Se as St. Paul, from James 

“ii. 14, 28. In the former verse he speaks 

of faith without works asnot capable of 
saving ἃ man ; ¢. e. of course, of justify- 
ing him before God, for justification be- 

‘fore man can never save. And in’ the 
latter verse, he adduces the case of Abra- 


ham, as of one who had a faith which 
brought forth works, and says, it was this 
kind of faith which was imputed to him 
for righteousness, ¢. 6. clearly before God. 
Evidently the two apostles differ in their 
use of the word “ faith,” not in their use 
of the word “ justify.” Both speak of 
justification before God: but one says 
that we are justified by faith, &. e. by 
a living faith; the other denies that we 
are justified by mere faith, ¢. 6. (accord. 
a his own explanation) by a dead 
th. 


ω : i aa 
ae 
. y 


Sxc. IL.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 323 


good works which naturally spring out of a lively faith, but rather 
faith and legal works, —“ the works of the Law,” — works done in 
a self-justifying spirit, and looked on as meriting reward. Faith, 
therefore, he declares, justifies without such works, — the works of 
the Law; but he does not say that a faith which does not bring 
forth the works of faith, will justify. On the other hand, St. James 
asserts that faith will not justify, if it do not bring forth good 
works ; but by good works he means evangelical! works, the works 
of faith, not legal works, the works of the Law. Hence, there 18 
no necessary contradiction in the language of the two Apostles. 
St. James simply considers justifying faith as including the works 
of faith. St. Paul considers justifying faith as excluding the 
works of the Law. 

1 Sine operibus fidei, non legis, mortua de iis que fidem sequuntur. — Augustin. 


est fides. — Hieron. in Gal. iii. Ille dicit Liber de Diversis Questionibus. Quest, 76. 
de operibus que fidem precedunt, iste Tom. vi. p. 68. 


[On the dispute with regard to fides informis and fides formata (see p. 291), the fol- 
lowing remark deserves attention : ‘‘ There is probably some truth on each side. We 
are justified by a faith which is at least potentially a fides formata ; although the office 
of justifying belongs not to the works of faith but to faith itself.” England ys, Rome 
(H. B. Swete), p. 35, note. —J. W.] 


ARTICLE XII. 


a 


Of Good Works. 


ALBEIT that good works, which are the 
fruits of faith, and follow after justifi- 
cation, cannot put not Meg sins, and 
endure the severity of God’s judgment ; 
yet are they pleasing and acceptable to 
God in Christ, and do spring out neces- 
sarily of a true and lively faith; inso- 
much that by them a lively faith may be 
as evidently known, as a tree discerned 
by the fruit. 


De Bonis Operibus. 


Bona opera, que sunt fructus fidei, et 
justificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata 
expiare, et divini judicii severitatem ferre 
non possunt: Deo tamen grata sunt, et 
accepta in Christo, atque ex vera et viva’ 
fide necessario profluunt, ut plane ex illis, 
zque fides viva cognosci possit, atque 
arbor ex fructu judicari. 





ΞΈΟΤΙΟΝ I.— HISTORY. 


pee great length at which the last Article was considered ren- 


ders it less necessary to say much upon this. 


Our present 


twelfth Article did not exist in the forty-two Articles of King Ed- 
ward’s reign, but was added in the year 1562, after the accession 
of Queen Elizabeth. It is evidently intended as a kind of supple- 
ment to the eleventh, lest that should be supposed to teach Soli- 
fidianism. Archbishop Laurence traces the wording of it toa pas- 
sage in the Wirtemburg Confession, to which it certainly bears 
great resemblance.! 

The general object of the Article was, no doubt, to oppose the 
Antinomian errors, which had originated with Agricola, and which 
there was some danger might spring from Lutheranism.?_ With 
such the whole Reformation was charged by the divines of the Ro- 
man communion, and therefore it was the more needful that the 
reformers should protest against them. 

There are certain particular expressions also in the Article which 
require to be explained historically. We have seen that the 
schoolmen talked of good works, done without the grace of God, 


1 The passage is :— 

De Bonis Operibus. 

Non est autem sentiendum, quod in 
bonis operibus, que per nos facimus, in 
judicio Dei, ubi agitur de expiatione 
peccatorum, et placatione divine ire, ac 
merito eterne salutis, confidendum sit. 


Omnia enim bona opera, que nos facimus, 
sunt imperfecta, nec possunt severitatem 
divini judicii ferre.— Laurence, B. L. 
Notes on Serm. 11. Ὁ. 235. 

2Mosh. Ch. Hist. Cent. xvi. § m1. pt. 
11. as quoted in the last Article. 





Src. 111] OF GOOD WORKS. 325 


meriting grace de congruo. ‘To this Luther and the reformers 
opposed the statement that works done without the grace of God 
might be apparently, but were not really good. And to this pur- 
pose is the thirteenth Article of our Church, which we have soon 
to consider. Luther asserted that good works, which are pleasing tc 
God, are not wrought but in faith ; for “ whatever is not of faith is 
sin ;”” and where there is faith, there is justification; therefore good 
works follow, not precede justification. Our Article uses this lan- 
guage without in this place discussing the merits of it. In the 
thirteenth Article the question is more fully entered on. It may 
be mentioned that language very similar had before been used by 
Augustine, and from him very probably was it borrowed by Luther. 
‘Good works,” says that father, “follow a man’s justification, do 
not precede it in order that he may be justified.” 

Another expression in the Articles is, that ‘‘ good works cannot 
put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment.” 
In the historical account of the last Article we saw that the Coun- 
cil of Trent condemned Luther for denying intrinsic goodness to 
works done after grace, and asserted that, as they were wrought by 
the Spirit of God, they were essentially good and perfect. The 
Council also taught that to the justified God’s commandments are 
possible, that justification is preserved and increased by good works, 
that the good works of the just, which are the gifts of God, are 
withal the merits of the justified.? 

We have seen also that Bellarmine and the Romanist divines as- 
sert, that good works which are wrought in us by the grace of God 
are, by virtue of that grace, meritorious of eternal life ;* ὁ, ὁ. aecord- 
ing to the schoolmen, they merit reward de condigno. The words 
of our Article are evidently opposed to these opinions. For, though 
they speak plainly of the necessity and value of works wrought by 
grace, they declare that ‘ they cannot put away our sins, and endure 
the severity of God’s judgment.” 





Section II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
W E may perceive, from what has been said, that the Article op- 


poses three doctrines. 


1Sequuntur opera bona justificatum, 8 Bellarmine, De Justificatione, Lib. v. 
non precedunt justificandum.— De Fide cap. 12, quoted in the History of Art. 
et ribus, α. 14. ΧΙ. 

2 Session vi. Canons 18, 24, 82. 


_ B26 OF GOOD WORKS. (Arr. XII. 


I. Merit de congruo;—TII. Merit de condigno ;— III. Anti- 
nomianism. 


Or otherwise the Article teaches : — 

I. That good works follow after justification ; 

II. That though they spring from the grace of God and a lively 
faith, still they cannot put away sin and endure the severity of God’s 
judgment. 

ΠῚ. Yet (1) that in Christ they are pleasing to God: and (2) 
That they spring out necessarily of a true and lively, 7. δ. a justi- 
fying faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evi- 
dently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit. 


I. The question of merit de congruo and works before justifica- 
tion being the special subject of the next Article, we may defer its 
consideration till we consider that Article. 

II. That the good works of justified men are not perfect enough 
to put away sin, and endure the severity of God’s judgment, may 
be proved as follows. 

Our Lord tells us, that after we have done all that is commanded 
us ‘¢ we are still unprofitable servants, having done only that which 
. was our duty to do” (Luke xvii. 10). But, if this be the case, 
how can we ever do anything to put away our former sins? Our 
best deeds leave us still unprofitable ; and if we had never sinned, 
we should still have only done our duty, and could claim no reward. 
But when we have sinned, it is clear that no degree of subsequent 
obedience (which would have been due even if we had not sinned) 
can cancel the sins which are past. And to this we must add that, 
even under grace, obedience is never perfect. ‘‘In many things 
we offend all,” says St. James (iii. 2); and St. John tells us that 
“if we say that we havenosin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John i. 8). 
And both the Apostles are evidently speaking to.and of regenerate 
Christians. The Psalmist prays God not to “ enter into judgment 
with him, because in His sight μὸ man living could be justified ” 
(Psalm cxliii. 2). Accordingly, St. Paul argues that the person 
who is blessed in God’s sight;is not the man who lives blameless in 
the Law, but “ he whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are 
vovered,” even “+ the man to whom ithe Lord will not impute sin” 
(Rom. iv. 7, 8). “ All have sinned and come short of the glory 
of God;” and therefore must be ‘justified freely by His grace, 
through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus’? (Rom. iii. 23, 
24). Such passages fully prove that, in whatever strength or power 


Sxe. II.] OF GOOD WORKS. 327 


good works are wrought, they are not perfect enough to. put away 
sin, and to endure the judgment of God. 

Still, though the Church denies the merit of good works, and 
their sufficiency to screen us from the wrath and endure the judg- 
ment of God, she yet teaches, 


III. 1. That in Christ, they are pleasing and acceptable to God:; 
and 2, that they do necessarily spring out of a true, and lively faith, 

1. In Christ they are pleasing and acceptable to God. 

(1). The words in Christ are introduced to remind us that what- 
ever is good in us must spring from the grace of Christ, and what- 
ever in us is acceptable to God is acceptable for Christ’s sake. In 
all the servants of Christ, God sees the image of His Son. In all 
the members of Christ, God sees the Spirit of His Son descending 
from the Head to the Members, like the holy oil on Aaron’s head, 
which flowed down to the skirts of his clothing. In all the branches 
of the heavenly Vine, God sees the fruit thereof, as put forth by 
virtue of the life and nourishment derived from the Vine itself; 
and that Vine is Christ. In every wedding-guest who, has on the 
wedding-garment, the King sees the wearer clothed in the robe of 
His own Son, and acknowledges them all as His children: ‘+ for we 
are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: for as many 
as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. iii. 26, 
21). Accordingly, the Scriptures constantly, when they speak of 
Christians and the works of Christians as pleasing to God, teach us 
that it is ‘in Christ.” So we read, “" There is now no condem- 
nation to them that are in Christ Jesus”? (Rom. viii. 1). ‘* In Christ 
Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision,; 
but faith which worketh by love’’ (Gal. v. 6). “We are His 
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Ephes. 
ii. 10). We are to “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus’’ (Col. 
iii. 17). We are to “" offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God 
by Jesus Christ ” (1 Pet. ii. 5). We are to,‘*give thanks always 
for all things unto God and the Father in, the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ ’’ (Eph. v. 20). ‘ By Him we are to, offer the sacri- 
fices of praise to God’ (Heb. xiii. 15). 

(2) But then the good deeds which Christians perform in. Christ 
are pleasing and acceptable to God. 

Our Lord tells us, that ““ ποῦ every one, that saith unto Him, 
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven ; but he that 
doeth the will of His Father which is in Heaven ”’ (Matt. vii. 21). 
He assures us of the reward. of those who, have. left, all for His,sake, 


828 OF GOOD WORKS. (Arr. XIL 


that they shall receive a hundredfold, and eternal life (Mark x. 29, 
80). He tells us, that, “ if we forgive, we shall be forgiven; that 
if we give, it shall be given to us” (Mark xi. 26; Luke vi. 37, 
88). He shows us by parables, that those who of two talents 
make five, shall receive five cities; those who make of five talents 
ten, shall receive ten cities (Matt. xxv. 14-30. Compare Luke 
xix. 12-26). He tells us that at the judgment-day they who 
have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the afflicted, 
shall be placed on the right hand, and go into life eternal (Matt. 
xxv. 81-46). He tells us of “a prophet’s reward,” and * a right- 
eous man’s reward ’’ (Matt. x. 41, 42). And, in short, assures us 
that He will “‘reward every man according to his works” (Matt. 
xvi. 27). 

So, from His Apostles we learn, that “in every nation he that 
feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him” 
(Acts x. 35): that the sacrifice of our bodies is “ acceptable to 
God” (Rom. xii. 1): that the labour of Christ’s servants ‘ shall 
not be in vain in the Lord”’ (1 Cor. xv. 58): that ““ God loveth a 
cheerful giver” (2 Cor. ix. 7): that, if we are not ‘* weary in well- 
doing, in due season we shall reap, if we faint not’’ (Gal. vi. 9) : 
that our new creation in Christ Jesus is “unto good works, which 
God hath beforehand ordained that we should walk in them” 
(Eph. ii. 10): that the new man “ after God is created in right- 
eousness and true holiness” (Eph. iv. 24): that our call is 
* not to uncleanness, but to holiness” (1 Thess. iv. 7): that 
“every one who nameth the name of Christ must depart from 
iniquity” (2 Tim. ii. 19); must “be careful to maintain good 
works” (Tit. iii. 8): that ‘“ without holiness no man shall see 
the Lord” (Heb. xii. 14): that with “such sacrifices” for His 
service ‘“‘God is well pleased” (Heb. xiii. 16): that “pure 
religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to 
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep 
himself unspotted from the world” (Jas. i. 27): that faith with- 
out works will not profit (Jas. ii. 14): that “to do well and 
suffer for it, and take it patiently, is acceptable to God” (1 Pet. ii. 
20): that whatsoever we ask of God we receive, if ‘* we keep His 
commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in His 
sight: ” and that “* he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth 
in Him, and He in him” (1 John iii. 22, 24. Compare Rom. vi. 
passim, Rom. viii. 1-14, and the concluding chapters of all St. 
Paul’s Epistles). 

Thus we plainly see that good works wrought in Christ are not 


SEC. 11.) OF GOOD WORKS. 32y 


only useful and desirable, but are absolutely necessary for every 
Christian, and are pleasing and acceptable to God. ‘* We do not 
take away the reward, because we deny the merit of good works. 
We know that in the keeping of God’s ϑαμέιχενία  γεδτνν there is 
great reward (Ps. xix. 11) ; and that unto him that soweth right- 
eousness there shall be a sure reward (Prov. xi. 18). But the 
question is, whence he that soweth in this manner must expect to 
veap so great and so sure a harvest ; whether from God’s justice, 
which he must do, if he stand upon merit, or from His mercy, as a 
recompense freely bestowed out of God’s gracious bounty, and not 
in justice due for the worth of the work performed. Which ques- 
tion, we think the prophet Hosea hath sufficiently resolved, when 
he biddeth us sow to ourselves in righteousness, and reap im MERCY 
(Hos. x. 12). Neither do we hereby any whit detract from the 
truth of that axiom, that God will give every man according to his 
works; for still the question remaineth the very same, whether 
God may not judge a man according to his works, when He sitteth 
upon the throne of grace, as well as when He sitteth upon the 
throne of justice? And we think here, that the Prophet David 
hath fully cleared the case in that one sentence, Psalm Ixii. 12, 
‘With thee, O Lord, is mercy; for thou rewardest every one ac- 
cording to his work.’ 

“‘ Originally therefore, and in itself, we hold that this reward 
proceedeth merely from God’s free bounty and mercy ; but acci- 
dentally, in regard that God hath tied Himself by His word and 
promise to confer such a reward, we grant that it now proveth in 
a sort to be an act of justice ; even as in forgiving of our sins, which 
in itself all men know to be an act of mercy, He is said to be faith- 
ful and just (1 John i. 9), namely, in regard of the faithful per- 
formance of His promise.” ἢ 

To conclude, then, the Scriptures prove, and the Church teaches, 
that, not upon the ground of merit, but yet according to God’s will 
and appointment, good works, wrought in Christ, are necessary for 
every Christian, are pleasing and acceptable to God, and will in 
the end receive ** great recompense of reward,” even that “crown 
of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give in 
that day” (2 Tim. iv. 8). 

2. That good works “do spring out necessarily of a true and 
living faith,” is a proposition which may be considered to have 
been incidentally but fully proved in treating on the eleventh 
Article. It may therefore here be sufficient to refer but briefly 


1Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. x11. 
42 


830 OF GOOD WORKS. [Arr. XIL 


to a few of the passages of Scripture in which this is most plainly 
set forth. 

The sixth chapter of Romans throughout is an explanation 
entered into by the Apostle, to show that this doctrine of justifica- 
tion does not supersede the necessity of good works; inasmuch as 
justified persons walk in newness of life, are made free from sin, 
and become servants of righteousness. The eleventh chapter of 
Hebrews is an enumeration of signal works of holiness, which were 
produced through the energizing power of the faith by which the 
saints of old lived and acted. St. James, in his famous chapter 
(ii. vv. 14-26), explains at length, that if faith be living, it will 
necessarily bring forth works, and that if there be no works, the 
faith is dead. We read of being “ sanctified by faith” in Christ 
(Acts xxvi. 18). God is said to ““ purify the heart by faith” (Acts 
xy. 9). Faith is said to be “the victory which overcometh the 
world”? (1. John v. 4). The faith which “availeth in Christ 
Jesus,” is called ‘ faith which worketh by love” (Gal. νυ. 6). 

Perhaps the strongest proof of this proposition is, that in all 
those writings of St. Paul (especially his Epistles to the Romans 
and the Galatians) where he peculiarly treats of faith, he passes 
directly from faith to speak of holiness, counselling Christians, as 
the consequence of his doctrine concerning faith, to bring forth 
good works. This we may observe in the latter chapters of both 
these Epistles, and indeed of all his Epistles. _The eleventh chap- 
ter of Hebrews indeed, which professes to explain to us what faith 
is, does so almost entirely by giving a list of the works which have 
sprung from it ; just as one who wished to describe the excellence 
of a fruit-tree would dwell chiefly on the beauty and goodness of 
its fruit. 

We may be assured, therefore, that we cannot assign too high a 
place to good works, so long as we do not assign to them the power 
of meriting salvation. They spring from faith, and they feed faith ; 
for the more faith is called into action, the brighter and the stronger 
it grows. And as in the bodily economy of man, good health gives 
birth to good spirits, and yet again, good spirits support and invig- 
orate health ; so it is in his spiritual life, Faith gives rise to holi- 
ness, and holiness gives energy to faith. 


ARTICLE ΧΤΠ. 


Of Works before Justification. De Operibus ante Justificationem, 


Works done before the Grace of Oprra que fiunt ante gratiam Christi 
Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, et Spiritus ejus afflatum, cum ex fide 
are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as Jesu Christi non prodeant, minime Deo 
they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; grata sunt; neque gratiam, ut multi vo- 
neither do they make men meet to re- cant, de congruo merentur; immo cum 
ceive grace, or (as the school-authors non sint facta, ut Deus illa fieri voluit et 
say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, precepit, peccati rationem habere non 
rather, for that they are not done as God dubitamus. 
hath willed and commanded them to be 
done, we doubt not but they have the 
nature of sin. 





Sxcrion I. — HISTORY. 


pas Article is intimately connected with the four preceding 
Articles, and is intended, probably, to prevent any mistakes, 
and more fully to explain some points in them. 

In the former Articles an account has been given of most of 
the errors against which this Article is directed; and the very 
wording of it shows that the scholastic doctrine of congruous merit 
is especially aimed at. Here, however, it may be proper to remark 
that the question has arisen concerning the nature of heathen vir- 
tue, a question of great. difficulty, on which the fathers touched, 
both before and after the Pelagian controversy. Clement of Alex- 
andria particularly speculated much upon the mode in which God’s 
grace and the teaching of Christ visited men before the coming of 
the Gospel. ‘* His notion was, that philosophy was given to the 
Gentiles by God, for the same purpose for which the Law was 
given to the Jews: in order to prepare them for justification under 
the Gospel by faith in Christ.” ‘ It is certain, however, that Clem- 
ent did not believe that heathen virtue possessed of itself any 
efficacy towards justification. For he says, that every action of the 
heathen is sinful, since it is not sufficient that an action is right; 
its object or aim must also be right.” } 


_ + Bishop Kaye, on the Writings of Clement of Alexandria, p. 426. See also 
pp. 122, seg. 


TE ae ee > 7y tr 1, Oa 


8382 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Arr. XII. 


Indeed, these opinions of Clement do not seem to interfere at 
all with the doctrine of this Article ; for Clement evidently con- 
sidered that God mysteriously worked in the Gentiles by His grace, 
using, as an external means, the imperfect instrument of their own 
philosophy. So that whatever good, he thought, might have 
existed in heathens, he still ascribed to God’s grace, and therefore 
did not consider their goodness “as works done before the grace 
of Christ.” ? 

We have already seen, how the Pelagians and Semi-pelagians 3 
denied the necessity of preventing grace ; and held that, in the first 
instance, God only called men by His word and ordinances, and 
that by their own strength such as were called might turn to God, 
and seek His assistance. 

In controversy, they appear to have referred to the case of 
virtuous heathens, many of whom might put to shame the lives of 
Christians. To Julianus, who advances this argument, Augustine 
replies at great length. Augustine’s position was, that ‘ what was 
not of faith was sin.” Julianus supposes the case of a heathen, 
who covers the naked and does works of mercy ; and asks, “ If a 
Gentile have clothed the naked, is this act of his therefore sin, 
because it is not of faith?” ® Augustine replies that it is; ‘ not 
because the simple act of covering the naked is sin, but because 
none but the impious would deny, that not to glory in the Lord, on 
account of such a work, was sin.” * He then goes on to argue, 
that a bad tree cannot bring forth really good fruit, that an unbe- 
lieving tree is a bad tree, and that apparently good works are not 
always really so, as the clemency of Saul in sparing Agag was sin. 
So he, who does unbelievingly, whatever he does, does ill; and he 
who does ill, sins.6 The good works which an unbeliever does are 
the works of Him, who turns evil to good. But without faith we 
cannot please God.® If the eye be evil, the whole body is dark ; 
whence we may learn, that he who does not do good works with 
the good intention of a good faith (that is, of a faith which worketh 
by love), his whole body is full of darkness. And since the good 
works, or apparent good works, of unbelievers cannot bring them 
to Heaven, we ought to hold, that true goodness can never ke 


1See Bishop Ka bove, p. 122, factum est, quod est nudum operire, peo- 
atin Rasisal shy NRO catum est; sed de tali opere non in Dom- 


2 See History of Art. rx. and x. ino gloriari, solus impius negat esse 
ὃ Si gentilis, inquis, nudum operuerit, m.— Cont, Julianum, Lib. rv. ὁ. 
numquid quia non est ex fide, peccatum . 
est ? 5 Cap. 31, 


* Prorsus in quantum non est ex fide, δ" Cap. 82. 
peccatum est. Non quia per se ipsum 


Ske. 1] OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 333 


given but by the grace of God through Christ, so as to bring a man 
to the kingdom of God." 

This was the kind of reasoning, which the fathers of that day 
used against the Pelagian arguments, that truly good deeds might 
be done without the grace of God.? 

The doctrine of the schoolmen concerning grace of congruity 
bore a suspicious resemblance to that of Semi-pelagians. In the 
history of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh Articles enough has been 
said on this subject ; and of the zeal with which Luther maintained 
the absolute necessity of preventing grace, in order that man should 
make any efforts, or take any steps towards godliness.? 

The case of Cornelius (Acts x.) was an argument often made 
use of in favour of grace of congruity. He, it was said, was a 
Gentile, and therefore not under the influence of God’s grace; 
and yet it was told him, ‘* Thy prayers and thine alms are come up 
for a memorial before God” (ver. 4). Hence it was argued, that 
he did what was acceptable to God, though without the grace of 
God. 

Luther treats Cornelius as a man who had faith in a promised 
Mediator, although he did not yet know that that Mediator was 
come ; and so, he argues, that his good deeds were of faith, and 
therefore acceptable.* 

At the Council of Trent the general opinion was strongly against 
Luther on these points. Catarinus indeed maintained, with great 
learning, that “ man, without the special help of God, can do no 
work which may be truly good, though morally, but sinneth still.” 
In confirmation of which, he quoted Augustine, Ambrose, Prosper, 
Anselm, and others. He was violently opposed by the Franciscans, 
but supported by the Dominicans.°® 

In the end, the seventh canon of the sixth session of the council 
condemned those who said, ‘‘ That works done before justification 
are sins, and that a man sinneth the more, by how much the more 
he laboureth to dispose himself to grace.” © Which canon does not 


1 Aut certe quoniam saltem concedis 
opera infidelium, que tibi eorum videntur 
bona, non tamen eos ad salutem sempi- 
ternam regnumque perducere : scito nos 
illud bonum hominum dicere, illam vol- 
untatem bonam, illud opus bonum, sine 
Dei gratia que datur per unum Mediato- 
rem Dei et hominum nemini posse con- 
ferri; per quod solum homo potest ad 
ezternum Dei donum regnumque perduci. 
Cap. 33. See also Augustine, De Fide 
et Operibus, where, in opposition to the 


Pelagian opinion that good works must 
be added to faith, he contends that good 
works spring from faith. 

2 The reader may see many passages 
from Jerome, Prosper, and others, to the 
same effect, in Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, 
ch. XI. 

3 See especially Luther on Gal. ii. 16. 

* Luther on Gal. iii. 2. 

5 Sarpi, pp. 183-185. 

6 Session vr. Can. 7, and Sarpi, p. 210. 


334 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Arr ΧΙΠ. 
exactly contradict the words of our Article, except it be in the last 


sentence of it. 

The Lutheran Confessions of faith speak very reasonably on this 
subject. The twentieth article of the Confession of Augsburg states 
a principal reason for maintaining justification by faith to be, that 
we might not think to deserve grace by our own good works ante- 
cedent to grace.! 

Our own reformers seem to have been influenced by a very 
similar view. ‘The Homilies say, that “* without faith can no good 
work be done, accepted and pleasant to God.’ ‘¢ Without faith all 
that is done of us is but dead before God; although the work seem. 
never so gay and glorious before man.” 2 

Again, “As the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is 
good, but the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good 
fruit ; so the good deeds of man are not the cause which maketh 
man good, but he is first made good by the Spirit and grace of 
God, that effectually worketh in him, and afterwards he bringeth 
forth good fruits.” ὃ 

“‘ They are greatly deceived that preach repentance without 
Christ, and teach the simple and ignorant that it consisteth only in 
the works of men. They may indeed speak many things of good 
works, and of amendment of life and manners: but without Christ 
they be all vain and unprofitable. They that think that they have 
done much of themselves towards repentance, are so much the 
farther trom God, because they do seek those things in their own 
works and merits, which ought only to be sought in our Saviour 
Jesus Christ, and in the merits of His death and passion and 
bloodshedding,”’ 4 





Sxction II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF, 


HE subjects embraced by the Article are, — 
I. That works before grace and the inspiration of the 
Spirit are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they are not of 
faith. 
II. They do not make men meet to receive grace de congruo. 
1 , pp, 180, 181. 4 First part of the Homily of Repent- 


2 First ἜΣ of Homily on Good Works. ance. 
® Second part of the Homily on Alms- 


Seo. IL] OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 335 


III. Rather, as not being done as God hath willed, it is believed 
that they have the nature of sin. 


Of these three positions, the second must follow from the proof 
of the first. For if good works without grace are not pleasing to 
God, they cannot predispose to grace. As regards the title of the 
Article, “Of Works before Justification,” we may observe, that. it 
was probably adopted because the question discussed in the Arti- 
cle itself went, at the time of the Reformation and the Council of 
Trent, under that name.! All questions concerning merit dy con- 
gruo, and works done before grace, were considered as embraced in 
the general term, “the question concerning works before justifica- 
tion.” The Article itself says nothing about justification. All 
that it determines is, that, in order for works to be acceptable. to 
God, they must be done by the grace of God, and must spring from 
a principle of faith. 

Against the whole tenor of the Article, and in favour of all which 
it condemns, the principal arguments from Scripture are such as 
these. Certain passages of Scripture seem to speak highly of par- 
ticular individuals, who were not Christians or true believers, 6. 9: 
Naaman the Syrian, and Cornelius the centurion. They had not 
the faith of Christ, and yet their good deeds are approved, It may, 
however, be replied, that both of them evidently acted from a princi- 
ple of faith. Naaman went to the prophet and sought relief, be- 
cause he believed that, as a prophet, he had power to heal him. 
Again, Cornelius, though not a Jew, was evidently a believer in the 
One true God, a proselyte of the gate, if not a proselyte of righteous- 
ness ; and therefore we cannot say that he had no faith, nor that 
he was without the grace of God, 

The same may be said of the Ninevites. Their repentance, it 
is argued, was accepted by God; and yet they were heathens, and 
therefore not true believers. But it is certain that their repent- 
ance sprang from their faith in Jonah’s preaching, and may very 
probably have been produced by that Holy Spirit who at all times 
has striven with men: and hence it was not of the nature of simple, 
naked, unassisted efforts to do good. 


1 Luther had used this language, that 
a man was justified first, and then did 
good works : and so “ works before jus- 
tification,” became a common expres- 
sion. Our Church in the xirth Article 
speaks of good works as ““ following after 
justification.” We are not, of course, 
bound to consider that every act of a 


man, who is not in a state of full sancti- 
fication, is therefore devoid of goodness, 
and of the nature of sin. This article 
sufficiently explains both its own mean- 
ing and the meaning of the phrase, “‘ fol- 
low after justification,” in the x11th Arti- 
cle, namely, that no works are good 
which do not ‘come of grace. 


880 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Arr. ΧΙΠ. 


A stronger argument against the doctrine of this Article seems 
derivable from the language of St. Paul; Rom. ii. 14, 26, 27. 
There he speaks of the Gentiles or heathens, ‘* which have not a 
law,” and yet ‘do by nature the things contained in the Law,” and 
so “are a law unto themselves.” And he says, that “ if the uncir- 
cumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncir- 
cumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumci- 
sion which is by nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the 
letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law?” Here the apos- 
tle seems to speak as if the heathen, who had not the revealed 
knowledge of God’s will, yet might so do His will as to be ac- 
ceptable with Him. 

In like manner, many learned men, of the Reformed Commun- 
ions, as well as of the Roman, understand St. Paul’s reasoning in 
Gal. iv. to be like what was shown in the last Section to have been 
the opinion of Clement of Alexandria; namely, that before the 
Gospel both Jews and Gentiles were kept by God in a state of 
bondage or tutelage, waiting for the liberty of the children of God ; 
that to the heathen their condition was one of elementary servitude, 
preparatory to the Gospel, as was that of the Jews. If the first 
seven verses of this chapter be compared carefully with the eighth 
and ninth, there will appear some ground for such an interpretation. 
From these passages it is argued, that heathens, who could not have 
faith, and were not subjects of grace, were yet capable in their de- 
gree of pleasing God. 

To this reasoning we may reply, that nothing can be more 
obscure than the question as to God’s dealings with, and purposes 
concerning the heathen world. Revelation is addressed to those 
whom it concerns, and tells us very little of the state of those to 
whom it is not addressed. Our business is to follow Christ, and 
not to ask ** Lord, and what shall this mando?” There is a marked 
purpose in Scripture not to satisfy man’s idle curiosity. The ques- 
tion therefore, at times so much debated, whether it be possible or 
impossible that the benefits of Christ’s redemption should reach to 
those millions of human beings who: never have heard and never 
could hear of Him, is left in deep obscurity ; and when people have 
reasoned on the subject, their arguments have mostly been infer- 
ences deduced from. other doctrines, and not express statements of 
Scripture. 

This much, however, we may fairly conclude, that if the passages 
just referred to prove that the heathen can do what is pleasing to 
God, and be accepted by Him,:it.is because His Holy Spirit can 


Sec. II.] OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 3387 


plead with them, even through the imperfect means of natural re- 
ligion. St. Paul says, it was God’s will that men “ should seek the 
Lord, if haply they might feel after Him ” (Acts xvii. 21). And 
he is there speaking of the world in its times of heathen darkness. 
It is possible that there may have been an imperfect faith, even ‘in 
times of ignorance which God winked at.” We know not, but that 
they who touched but the hem of Christ’s garment, may have 
found virtue go out of it. 

But with regard to the teaching of our Article, we may fairly 
conclude that it rather refers to the case of persons within, not 
without the sound of the Gospel. This is the practical question. 
It does not concern us practically to know how it may be with the 
heathen ; although, of course, their case affects the general question. 
And the case of the heathen is so obscure, that we can hardly be 
justified in bringing it to throw light on a case which concerns 
ourselves and our own state before God. 

But it may be farther said that God approves of justice, and tem- 
perance, and charity, in themselves, and of themselves ; and there- 
fore if a man who has neither faith nor grace, acts justly, and does 
mercy, and lives soberly, God must approve and be pleased with 
such acts, just as he would disapprove and hate the contrary. But, 
in reply, it is urged, that God sees the heart, and loves what is good 
in us, only when it springs from a good source. Indeed, there are 
some sinners much greater sinners than others, whom He will visit 
with “ greater damnation.” But though in themselves He loves 
justice and mercy, He does not,love and accept the man who does 
them, unless that man does them from right motives; and as ‘** every 
good and perfect gift is from above,” we infer that good motives 
cannot come but from Him, * who worketh in us to will as well as 
to do according to His good pleasure.” The man ‘dead in tres- 
passes and sins,”’ must have life given him from above, before he 
can walk in newness of life, and do what is well pleasing in God’s 
sight. 

Having ‘thus considered the principal objections, we may now 
proceed to prove our propositions. 


I. And first: ‘‘ Works done before the grace of Christ, and the 
inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they 
spring not of faith.” 

The language concerning the new birth may come in here. 
John iii.3: “ Except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- 
dom of God:” the language of our Lord to His disciples, John xy. 

43 


838 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Arr. XIL 


5, “ Without Me ye can do nothing :”’ and the language of St. Paul 
concerning the state of the unregenerate and carnal mind, ‘‘ In me, 
that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing,” Rom. vii. 18. ‘ The 
carnal mind is not subject to the law, of God, neither indeed can be. 
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God,” Rom. viii. 7, 
8. All these and many similar passages were considered at length 
under Article [X.; and they surely prove that the natural man, 
without the aid of God, cannot bring forth fruits which are pleasing 
to God. As our Lord says expressly, “" Abide in Me, and I in 
you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in 
the vine ; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me,”’ John xv. 4) 

But, moreover, as it is taught us that the source of all true holi- 
ness is faith, so if our good works do not spring from faith, they can- 
not be pleasing to God. Thus, “ without faith it is impossible to 
please God,” Heb. xi. 6.“ The just shall live by faith,” Rom. i. 17. 
Nay! we are even told that “ whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” 
Rom. xiv. 23: and that evidently, because apparently good works, if 
not springing from a good source, are not really good. 

Hence the statement of our Article seems fully borne out, that 
ἐς works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His 
Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of 
faith.” Duval s 


II. The second proposition follows from the first: namely, that 
works done without grace do not make men meet to receive grace 
de congruo. : 

If they are not acceptable to God, it is manifest that they cannot 
procure grace from Him. It is true, that “ the Law of the Lord is 
an undefiled law, converting the soul;” and that he who strives 
earnestly to fulfil God’s commandments may always expect to have 
his exertions assisted by fuller supplies of the grace of God.? But 
this is because God loves to reward His grace in us by farther gifts 
of that grace — because all those earnest strivings are in themselves 
proofs of the Spirit of God working in us. Good works are in no 
degree to be underrated ; and the more a man does of them, the 
more he is likely to gain strength to do more. 

This is the regular course of growth in grace. Even naturally, 
good habits are acquired by performing good actions: and spirit- 
ually, those that use the grace of God find it increasing in them. 


! The reader may refer to what was shall know of the doctrine, whether it be 
said under Art. x. on Free Will. of God,” John vii. 17, “ God resisteth 

* On this principle it is that “If any the proud but giveth grace to the hum- 
‘man will (ϑέλῃ) do the will of God, he ble,” 1 Pet. v. 5. ne 


ee 


Sec. Π.] OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 839 


But this is quite a distinct view of the case from that taken by the 
maintainers of congruous merit. Their doctrine is that a man, 
without any help from God, and by a strong effort of his own will, 
can so fulfil the commandments, as, though not of actual right, yet, 
on a certain principle of congruity, to draw down the grace of God 
upon him. Scripture, on the contrary, seems to teach that every 
attempt of this kind is displeasing, as being the result of arrogance 
and self-sufficiency. The Pharisees, who thought themselves not 
blind, are told that that was the very cause of their condemnation, 
whereas, if they were aware of their own weakness, they should 
receive their sight. ‘If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but 
now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth ’ (John ix. 41). 
The Jews are spoken of as cast off and blinded, because they sought 
to find their way to God, and to attain to righteousness, through 
the works of the Law, and through their own righteousness, in- 
stead of by the faith of Christ (see Rom. ix. 30, 81) ; for they “ were 
ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their 
own righteousness, they did not submit themselves to the righteous- 


ness of God” (Rom. x. 8). 


III. The Article concludes by saying, that forasmuch as such 
works “ are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to 
be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin.” 

Works done in self-righteousness, done with a view to justify 
ourselves by our own merits, are not done as God hath willed, but 
in a wrong spirit and temper; and therefore, proceeding from a 
bad principle, must be bad. There may be in such works a mix- 
ture, as there often is, of good with the bad motive. This God | 
alone can see, and will approve the good, whilst He disapproves 
the bad. Many a person tries to do right, acting in ignorance, 
and on the principle that such a mode of action is what God has 
appointed, and what He will reward. Such a person may have 
very imperfect knowledge of the truth, and may not be sufficiently 
aware of his own weakness, and his own need of Divine strength. 
But mixed with such errors, there may be pure principles of faith 
and desire to serve God; and God, who sees the heart, may give 
more blessing to such a person than to many a better instructed 
Christian. The Article, however, may be quite right, notwith- 
standing, in saying that works, not springing from grace, and not 
done in faith, have the nature of sin. As a general proposition, it 
is true that “ whatever is not of faith is sin.” And the spirit 
which leads a man, instead of relying on God’s mercy in Christ, 


840 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Arr. XIII. 


and seeking the aid of His Spirit, to rely on his own unassisted 
efforts, is also sin. It is a virtual denial of human infirmity, of 
the Atonement of Christ, and of the need of the Spirit. 

Again, the only thing, which makes good works to be good, is 
the fact that God has commanded them. Hence, if we find them 
not done in the way and for the end to which God has ordained 
them, we are justified in saying that they are not good works, but 
bad works. The passages quoted from the Homilies in the former 
section show sufficiently that this was what the anecen meant 
by the words of the Article. 


ARTICLE XIV. 


Of Works of Supererogation. 


VoLuntTary works, besides, over and 
above God’s commandments, which they 
call Works of Supererogation, cannot be 
taught without arrogancy and impiety : 
for by them men do declare, that they 
do not only render unto God as much as 
they are bound to do, but that they do 


De Operibus Supererogationis. 


OPERA, que supererogationis appel- 
lant, non possunt sine arrogantia, et im- 
pietate preedicari. Nam illis declarant 
homines, non tantum se Deo reddere, 
que tenentur, sed plus in ejus gratiam 
facere, quam deberent, cum aperté Chris- 
tus dicat: Cum feceritis omnia quecun- 
que precepta sunt vobis dicite, servi in- 


more for His sake than of bounden duty 
is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, 
When ye have done all that are com- 
manded to you, say, We are unprofitable 
servants. 


utiles sumus, 





Srction I.— HISTORY. 


οὶ ai iba is nothing in the earliest fathers which bears much on 

the gubject of this Article, unless it be that they appear to 
have attached more than due importance to martyrdom. Thus the 
baptism of blood was considered equivalent to baptism by water ; 
and some perhaps, appear to have ascribed merit to it, such as to 
cancel sins. Hermas for instance speaks of the martyrs as hay- 
ing “all their offences blotted out, because they have suffered 
death for the name of the Son of God.” ! And again says of them, 
when compared with the rest of the redeemed, that they have 
“some glory above the others.”2 And so Tertullian says, that 
“all sins are forgiven to martyrdom.” ® But with reference to the 
last-named writer, it has been clearly shown, that with all his high 
esteem for martyrdom, he expressly maintained that it was impos- 
sible for martyrs to have an excess of holiness above what was 
required, as not being in themselves sinless. It was the custom in 
his days for persons who had lapsed in persecution to be restored 
to the communion of the Church, at the intercession of martyrs 
and confessors ; a custom which was often much abused. Writing 


1 Simil. 1x. 29. 2 Vis. 111. 28. 
8 Omnia huic operi delicta donantur. Apol. sub. fin. 


ee a 


842 


on this subject, Tertullian says, “* Who but the Son of God can by 
His own death relieve others from death? He, indeed, delivered 
the thief at the very moment of His passion; for He had come for 
this very end, that, being Himself free from sin and perfectly holy, 
He might die for sinners. You then, who imitate Christ in par- 
doning sins, if you are yourselves sinless, suffer death for me. But 
if you are yourself a sinner, how can the oil out of your cruise 
suffice both for you and me ?””? 

In this admiration, however, of the early Church for martyrdom, 
and in the admission of the intercession of the martyrs for the de- 
liverance of others from church-censures, we may perhaps trace the 
germ of the doctrine of works of supererogation.? 

In the respect which they paid to virginity we may find 
another source for the same error; for it is well known, that they 
gave the fullest latitude to those words of our Lord and of St. 
Paul, in which they speak of celibacy as a favourable state of life 
for the development of Christian graces, and for devotion to the 
service of the Cross. 

On this subject especially St. Paul writes, ‘‘ Concerning virgins, 
I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my advice” 
(1 Cor. vii..25) ; De virginibus autem preceptum Domini non habeo, 
sed consilium do. From this expression it was very early inferred 
that the Scriptures made a distinction between precepts, which are 
binding on all men, and counsels, which it is desirable to follow, 
but which are not obligatory on the conscience. Thus St. Cyprian, 
speaking of celibacy, says, ‘‘ The Lord does not command this, but 
exhorts to it. He lays not on a yoke of necessity, when the free 
choice of the will remains. But whereas he says, that in His Fa- 
ther’s house are many mansions, He points out the way to the 
better mansions.” ® St. Augustine writes, “It is not said, Thou 
shalt not marry, as it is said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, 
Thou shalt not kill. The latter are exacted, the former is offered. 
If the one is observed, there is praise. If the other is neglected, 


WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. [Arr. XIV. 


1 De Pudicitia, Cap. 22. See Bishop 
Kaye, Tertullian, p. 836. 

ike this is the language of Augustine, 

ge by Bp. Beveridge on this Article : 


tsi fratres pro fratribus moriantur, ta-: 


men in peccatorum remissionem nullius 
sanguis martyris funditur, quod fecit Ille 
(ἐ. 6. Dominus Christus) pro nobis. Au- 
gust. Jn Joh. tract 84. 

‘2 Rogare legem, to propose a law. Ero- 
gare, to make a law for paying a sum of 
money out of a public treasury. So the 
word is used for lending or paying out. 


Hence supererogare, to pay over and 
above. In Luke x. 35, προσδαπανάω is 
in the Vulgate supererogo, to spend more. 
— Hey, ur. p. 408. 

8 Nec hoc jubet Dominus sed hortatur: 
nec jugum necessitatis imponit, quando 
maneat voluntatis arbitrium liberum. 
Sed cum habitationes multas apud Pa- 
trem suum dicat, melioris habitaculi hos- 
pitia demonstrat : habitacula ista meliora 
vos petitis, carnis desideria castrantes, 
majoris premium in celestibus obtine- 
tis. — Cypr. De Habitu Virginum, p. 102. 


. 


WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 9423 


there will be condemnation.” } And St. Jerome distinguishes be- 
tween a precept and a counsel, as that the one involves necessity 
of obedience, the other leaves a liberty of accepting or refusing.? 

The distinction thus early made may have had a legitimate 
foundation in Holy Writ. But, in process of time, there grew out 
of it the doctrine of works of supererogation, as connected with a 
belief in the merits of martyrdom, and of voluntary celibacy. The 
increase of monasticism, and the increasing respect paid to every 
kind of ascetic observance, cherished this belief. In the language 
of the confession of Augsburg, “The monks taught that their 
mode of life was a state of perfection, because they observed not 
precepts only, but counsels also. This error is greatly at variance 
with Gospel truth ; for thus they pretended so to satisfy the com- 
mands of God as even to exceed them. And hence arose the 
grievous error, that they claimed merits of supererogation. These 
they applied to others, that they might be satisfactions for other 
men’s sins.” ὃ 

The full-grown form of the doctrine was, that a man may not 
only keep the law of God, so as to do all that is actually enjoined 
on him, but may be so full of the grace of God as even to do more 
than God’s law enjoins, and thereby deserve even more than his 
own salvation. This excess of merit, which was supposed to be 
attained by some of the greater saints, formed a deposit, which was 
intrusted to the Church, and which the Roman pontiff, the vicar 
of Christ, could for reasonable causes, by the power of the keys, 
unlock, and grant to the faithful, in the way of indulgences, and 
for the remission of temporal punishment. 

In the Council of Trent, the last decrees read and approved 
were concerning the granting of indulgences. The council anathe- 
matized those who said they were unprofitable, and, though forbid- 


Src. 11 


1 Non enim sicut Non mechaberis, non 
occides, ita dici potest, non nubes. Illa 
exiguntur, ista offeruntur. Si fiunt ista, 
laudantur: nisi fiunt illa, damnantur. 
In illis Dominus debitum imperat vobis ; 
in his autem si quid amplius superero- 
gaveritis, in redeundo reddit vobis. — 
August. De Sancta Virginitate, cap. 30. 
Opera, Tom. vi. p. 355. 

2 Ubi consilium, ibi offerentis arbitri- 
um, ubi preceptum datum, ibi neces- 
sitas est servientis. Hieron. ad Eusto- 
chium, De Servanda Virginitate. So in 
the Sermons De Tempore, ascribed to 
Augustine, Sermon uxr. De Virgini- 
tate dicitur, Qui potest capere, capiat. 
De justitia non dicitur, Qui potest facere, 


sed Omnis arbor, que non facit fructum 
bonum exscindetur, et in ignem mit- 
tetur. See these and some other pas- 
sages quoted by Bellarmine, De Mona- 
po Lib. 11. cap. 7, 11. Tom. τι. pp. 868, 
The words of S. Chrysostom are much 
to this purpose on Rom. viii. : οἱ πνευμα- 
τικοὶ πάντα πράττουσιν ἐπιϑυ ig καὶ πόϑῳ, 
καὶ τοῦτο δηλοῦσι τῷ καὶ ὑπερβαίνειν τὰ 
ὑποτάγματα. Thus rendered by Bp. Jer. 
Taylor, “ Spiritual men do their actions 
with much passion and holy zeal, and 
give testimony of it by expressing it in 
the uncommanded instances.” — Rule of 
Conscience, 11. δ 12; which see. 


8 Sylloge, p. 


844 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. (Arr. XIV. 


ding their sale and other abuses, yet commanded that they should 
be retained as profitable for Christian people.’ There is no ene 
mention of works of supererogation. 

It is scarcely necessary to add, that all the reformed Churches 
and sects, of whatever class or denomination, have rejected. the 
doctrine of the Romanists concerning works of supererogation. 





Section II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


Wiss principal arguments in favour of the doctrine of the Roman 

Church on this subject may be found in the writings of Car- 
dinal Bellarmine, in the second book of his treatise De Monachis. 
He assumes the principle, a principle which rightly understood 
need not be controverted, that in some passages of Scripture advice 
is given, where there is not a positive command: and then he infers 
that, ‘*as our Lord distinguishes counsels from precepts, He plainly 
shows that men justified by the grace of God can not only fulfil 
the law, but even do some works most pleasing to God, which have 
not been commanded.” # 

Now this inference may fairly be considered a petitio principit ; 
for advice, when coming from our Lord or His Apostles, may be a 
counsel tending indeed to spiritual good, but yet, if followed, not 
enabling to do more than is commanded, but only putting in the 
road to obtain more grace and strength from above. 
- Bellarmine, besides referring to several. passages of the fathers, 
some of which have been already quoted, brings forward very many 
texts of Scripture to prove his position. The greater number of 
these appear so little relevant, that I shall make no apology for 
considering those only which appear to have some weight. 

1. The first which we may mention is the counsel given by our 
Lord to the man who came to Him, and asked, “" Good Master, 
what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” Our 
Lord first replies, “* Keep the commandments.” The young man 
then says that he has kept all these from his youth, and adds, 


1 Sarpi, p. 757. Dei non solum implere legem, sed etiam 
2 Controvers. General. Lib. rv. De Tn- mine alia opera Deo gratissima facere, 
dulgentiis, Tom. 111. 1124. Dominus = imperata non sint. He quotes espe- 
consilia a preceptis εὐὐμηκόδον ostendit y the case of the young man, 
posse homines justificatos per gratiam xix. 16, &c. 


Sec. 11] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 


345 


«What lack I yet?” Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect, 
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt 
have treasure in Heaven: and come and follow Me.” 1 Bellarmine 
argues that this last sentence of our Lord’s could not have been a 
command, but was a counsel of perfection, which, if obeyed, would 
have been more than was the young man’s duty, ὁ. 6. a work of 
supererogation. ‘This he proves as follows: It was not a precept; 
for to the question, “What shall I do that I may have eternal 
life? ’’ the answer is “ ΠῚ thou wilt enter into life keep the com- 
mandments.”” Therefore the keeping the commandments would be 
sufficient for salvation. And the advice afterwards given tended to 
perfection, not to salvation.? 

But if we attentively consider the whole conversation, we shall 
see that this interpretation will not satisfy the case. In the first 
place, the young man asks, ““ What good thing he should do to have 
eternal life ;”’ to which our Lord gives the general reply, that, ‘if 
he would be saved, he must keep the commandments.” The young 
man, evidently not ill disposed (see Mark x. 21), but with an un- 
due notion of his own strength and goodness, then says, that he has 
kept all the commandments from his youth, and, as though he could 
see no deficiency in his own conduct, asks again, “ What lack I 
yet?” Now it was to this question, “* What lack I?” that our Lord 
gave the reply now under consideration. That reply, therefore, 
was intended to show the young man what he lacked: and if he 
lacked something, it is quite clear that the supplying of that lack, 


1 Matt. xix. 16-21. 


course, all his wealth, for Him. Peter 
, ? Lib. 11. De Monachis, cap. 9, Tom. 


_Martyr too had said, that it could not be 


I. p. 868, &e. 

The cardinal replies to many argu- 
ments which have been brought ἧς EN 
his interpretation of this history: e. g. 
St. Jerome and Bede considered ‘the 
young man’s question as a tempting of 
our Lord, but Chrysostom refutes this 
opinion, by showing that none of the 
Evangelists blame him, and Bellarmine 
adds, that St. Mark (x. 21), says that 
“ Jesus beholding him loved him.” Cal- 
vin (dnst. Lib. 1v. cap. 18) had argued 
that our Lord could not have placed per- 
fection in selling all things, since in 1 
Cor. xiii. 8, we read “ though I give all 
my goods to feed the poor... . and 
have not charity, it profiteth me noth- 
ing.” Calvin also observes, that the 
young man could not really have kept 
all the commandments, for one is, ‘‘ Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart,” &c.; and he who does this will 
give up everything, and therefore, of 

44 


a counsel, but a precept, when our Lord 
said, “If thou wilt be perfect, sell all 
that thou hast;”’ for in Matt. v. 48, 
“Be ye perfect”’ is a precept ; and there- 
fore whatever teaches us to be perfect 
must be of the nature of a precept also. 

To this Bellarmine tries to reply, that 
there are different kinds of perfection, 
some necessary for salvation, buta higher 
degree for a higher grade of glory. P. 
Martyr also says, that this command 
was given to the young man alone, and 
that therefore it was necessary for his 
perfection, but not for every one’s, for he 
is perfect who obeys God’s laws. Bellar- 
mine answers, No! The command was, 
“If thou will enter into life, keep the 
commandments ;”’ this was addressed tc 
all. So we ought to infer that the saying, 
“If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou 
hast,” was equally addressed toall. He 
quotes Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, 
as agreeing with him in this view. 


846 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. (Arr. XIV. 


or deficiency, could not be a work of supererogation, but a work 
of duty or obligation, This is further proved by the conduct of the 
young man, who, when he had heard. our Lord’s reply, “ went 
away sorrowful.” That is to say, he felt not able and willing to 
do what our Lord had said was needful for him to do. He had 
asked what was necessary for his salvation. The first answer gave 
him satisfaction ; for it did not fully convince him of his weakness. 
The second probed him to the quick, and showed him that the 
‘strength of purpose which he supposed himself to possess, was not 
such as to lead him to renounce all for the kingdom of God. And 
so, when he had gone away sorrowful, our Lord does not say, A 
rich man shall hardly become perfect, or do works of supereroga- 
tion ; but He says, ‘‘ Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall 
hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven. And again I say unto 
you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than 
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.’ It was unfitness 
for the kingdom of Heaven, not unfitness for a supereminent degree 
of glory, which the rich man showed, when, at our Lord’s bidding, 
he could not sell all that he had. 

Whence it appears, that this saying of our Lord’s was a precept, 
and not a counsel. It was like the command given to Abraham to 
kill his son. It was a trial of his faith and of his readiness to obey. 
The faithful servant of God will give up all, even that he loves the 
best, for Him whom he serves. Abraham’s dearest treasure was 
his son, and he was ready to sacrifice him. The young man’s . 
treasure was his wealth, and he went away sorrowful. The one 
was shown to be true and firm in the faith. The other’s faith was 
proved to be doubtful and wavering. 

Bellarmine, however, farther contends that, whereas it follows in 
the 27th verse, ‘* Peter answered and said unto Him, Behold we 
have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have there- 
fore ?”’ if the command was only given to the young man, and 
not to all men, then our Lord would have said to Peter, ‘I will 
give nothing to you, I spoke only to this young man;” (Wihil 
vobis dabo, nam soli illi juvent loquutus sum) ; whereas the answer 
actually given is (Amen dico vobis, ge.) ** Verily I say unto you, 
that ye who have followed Me . .. . shall sit on twelve thrones 

. and every one who hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or 
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my 
sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting 
life.” The cardinal’s conclusion is therefore, that to all men it.is 
a precept, “keep the commandments,” and to all men it is a coum 


Sec. I] ~ WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION 347 


sel, ‘sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.” The Apostles 
obeyed the precept and the counsel both, and so did more than 
their duty; the young man kept only the precepts, and so won 
Heaven, but not more’ than Heaven. 

There is evidently a fallacy here. No doubt, it is not com- 
manded to all men to sell all that they have; for St. Paul bade 
Timothy ‘charge those who are rich in ‘this world” (not to sell 
their possessions, but) “‘ not to trust in uncertain riches,” “to do 
good, to be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to com- 
municate”’ (1 Tim. vi. 17, 18). But though all men are not ex- 
pressly called to sell all that they have, yet at the time of our 
Lord’s presence upon earth, He did call all His immediate followers 
to give up everything for, His sake ; and the most obvious and de- 
cided way of giving proof of zeal for His service and love to Him, 
was to forsake parents and brethren, house and lands, and to follow 
Him who had no place to lay His head.!. Thus, as Abraham evi- 
denced his faith by being ready to slay his son, so the Apostles 
evidenced theirs by forsaking their homes; and the rich young 
man could not find it in his heart to sacrifice so much, because his 
faith was not so true. Here is no room for works of supereroga- 
tion, nor even for counsels of perfection. 

2. Another of Bellarmine’s proofs? is drawn from 1 Cor. ix. ; 
in which St. Paul asserts, that he might have received payment for 
his ministry, that he might have led about a wife at the expense of 
the Church; but that he would not do anything of this kind, lest 
his glorying should be made void. Taking the Latin version as 
his guide, Bellarmine reasons, that, though St. Paul might have 
fulfilled all his duty, if he had taken payment of the Church, yet 
he would not take reward, that he might obtain greater glory. 
And he argues against Peter Martyr (who interprets the gloriam 
of ver. 15 to ‘‘ mean glorying before men”’) that St. Augustine had 
written, Bonum est magis mihi mori, quam ut gloriam meam quis 
evacuet. Quam gloriam? nisi quam habere voluit apud Deum in 
Christo?® But pace tanti viri, be it said, that the Greek word is 
καύχημα, which means boasting ; and that a greater than St. Au- 
gustine has written that “ no flesh should glory (or boast) in God’s 
presence.” * The passage in St. Paul can hardly mean anything 

1 We must remember that there was ἃ sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can 
perfectly general precept to this effect: not be my disciple,” Luke xiv. 26. 

“He that loveth father or mother more 2 Tom. 11. p. 378. 
than me is not worthy of me,’ Matt. x. 3 Lib. de Opere Monachorum, ec. 10. 
87. And again: “If any man come to ‘1Cor.i. 29. Comp. Rom. iii. 27; iv 


me, and hate not his father and mother, 2. Eph. ii. 9. 
and wife and children, and brethren and 


848 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. ~ [Arr. XIV. 


but this: that, whereas he, as an Apostle, had a right to be charge- 

_able to the Church, he had yet refused to be so, that he might have 
the more influence for good over those among whom he ministered. 
As he says in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter, “ Though 
he was free from all men, yet he made himself the servant of all, 
that he might gain the more.” Thus he was able to boast, that he 
had cust them nothing; and they therefore could not charge him 
with avarice or private views. To make his glorying in this re- 
spect void would have been to deprive him of his influence over 
them, and therefore of that power to do good which lay so near 
his heart. ' 

3. But the most cogent argument from Scripture, in favour of 
works of supererogation, is drawn from the passages in which our 
Lord and St. Paul, whilst highly honouring marriage, yet give the 
preference to a life of celibacy. The passages in question are 
Matt. xix. 10, 11, 12, and 1 Cor. vii. passim, especially 7, 8, 25— 
28, 82-40. 

On the first passage, Bellarmine observes, that to live a life of 
celibacy cannot be a precept, because of the high commendation 
which our Lord had just bestowed upon matrimony, and yet, he 
says, it is evident that it has a reward in Heaven, because our Lord 
declares that ‘some have made themselves eunuchs” (ὦ. e. have 
lived a life of celibacy) ‘ for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake,” and 
then adds, “* He that is able to receive it, let him receive it ” (Matt. 
xix. 12). In like manner, on 1 Cor. vii. he observes, that the 
advice to abstain from marriage is evidently a counsel ; and that it 
is a counsel of not merely human wisdom, but proceeding from the 
Spirit of God ; which he fully proves from ver. 25, 40; where the 
Apostle declares that, though there had been ‘no commandment 
of the Lord,” yet he gave his judgment as one who had * obtained 
mercy of the Lord to be faithful,” ver. 25; and that in thus giving 
his judgment, he felt assured that he had the Spirit of God, 
ver. 40.1 

Luther, he says, only admitted a temporal advantage to be at- 
tached to celibacy, and such has been the exposition of many Prot- 
estants ; namely, that so a man may escape cares, and anxieties, 
and that especially in time of persecution. Against such Bellar- 
mine quotes the words of St. Augustine ;? who truly maintained, 


1 Δοκῶ δὲ κἀγὼ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἔχειν, continentie bonum non esse necessarium 
where, according to the well-known propter regnum celorum, sed propter 
usage of St. Paul and others, δοκεῖν is presens seculum, quod scilicet conjugia 
far from implying doubt. terrenis curis pluribus atque arctioribus 

2 De Sancta Virginitate, ce. 18. Unde distenduntur, qua molestia virgines et 
mirabiliter desipiunt, qui putant hujus continentes carent, &c. 


Sec. I[I.] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 349 


that the Apostle spoke of spiritual as well as temporal benefits to 
be derived from celibacy. 

From Luther, Bellarmine passes to Melancthon, who went 
farther than Luther, and admitted that some spiritual good might 
be derived from an unmarried state, such as more freedom and time 
for prayer and preaching.!_ But to the temporal benefits admitted 
by Luther, and to the spiritual benefits allowed by Melancthon, 
Bellarmine adds a third, namely, to please God and obtain greater 
reward. He observes that the words propter instantem necessita- 
tem, ‘because of the present distress” (ver. 26), do not mean that 
we may escape present troubles, but that they rather mean, propter 
brevitatem temporis, ** because of the shortness of the time;” as it 
is said (ver. 29), ‘* But this I say, brethren, the time is short.” 
Against Melancthon he says, that in ver. 84 the Apostle commends 
the state of an unmarried female, saying, that “she careth for the 
things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit ;” 
and that this shows that virginity has of itself a sanctity both of 
body and spirit, according to the words of Jerome (lib. I. Contra 
Jovinian) : Illa virginitas hostia Christi est, cujus nee mentem cogi- 
tatio, nec carnem libido maculant. From ver. 35, where St. Paul 
says he speaks thus “for that which is comely,” ad id quod hones- 
tum est, Bellarmine argues that the apostle calls continence a thing 
per se honestam et decoram et proinde Deo charam, ‘‘a thing in its 
own nature comely and honourable, and therefore dear to God.” 
And again, in ver. 40, the words “ She is happier if she so abide,” 
he says, plainly mean, she will be happier in the world to come.? 

Now in this reasoning of the distinguished Romanist divine there 
appears a considerable mixture of truth and error. Let us admit, 
as we cannot doubt, that the Apostle wrote under the guidance of 
the Spirit; let us admit that he gave a counsel, not a precept ; for 
plainly it is no commandment of God that men should not marry, 
but only that they should “ abstain from fornication.” Let us ad- 
mit that both our blessed Lord and St. Paul spoke of abstaining 
from marriage, for the sake of some advantages which an unmar- 
ried life has, as regards spiritual employments and spiritual medita- 
tions. The divines of our own communion have admitted this as 
freely as those of the Roman Church.’ There seems no reason to 


this Article, and Milner, Hist. of the 


1In Locis, cap. De Castitate. 
Church, Cent. 1. ch. x1. ; Cent. 11. ch. V1II. ; 


2 Beatior autem erit, si sic perman- 
serit, id est, ut exponit, in futuro sxculo. 
Bellarmine treats of Matt. xix. Controv. 
Gener. Tom. 11. p. 867. Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 
Tom. 11. p. 878. 

8. For example, see Bp. Burnet on 


divines of a school peculiarly disinclined 
from any concessions to the Romanists. 
On the proper distinction between pre- 
cepts and counsels, the student may read 
with great advantage Bp. Jer. Taylor 


850 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. (Arr. XIV. 


doubt, that both our Lord and St. Paul speak of some to whom a 
peculiar gift has been given, and who can, by living unmarried, de- 
vote themselves more unreservedly to the work of the Gospel, and 
the service of the Lord. Marriage brings with it the anxieties of 
family and worldly business, and many of those “ cares of this life,” 
which may, if not checked, choke the good seed. From all such 
celibacy is free. Therefore, though marriage be a state ordained of 
God, yet some, thinking to give their whole lives to religious em- 
ployments, have abstained from marriage, ‘* have made themselves 
eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake ;”’ and such ἃ determi- 
nation, in such as are * able to receive it,”’ our Lord has honoured 
with His sanction, ** Let him receive it.”’ And so it is with the coun- 
sel of St. Paul. He tells us, that ‘the time is short, it remaineth 
that they that have wives be as though they had none . . . that they 
who use this world, be as though they used it not; for the fashion 
of this world passeth away.”’ Accordingly, to such as have the gift 
of continence he gives his advice, that it may help them on more in 
their course of godliness, if they continue to live a life less burdened 
with the cares of this world than is the life of those who are 
united in marriage. Such a life is not indeed to be commended to 
all men, and the Apostle carefully guards himself against forcing the 
conscience, or “casting a snare upon”’ them. But it is a life which 
has many advantages. The unmarried have nothing to do but care 
for the things of the Lord ; whilst the married cannot but be anxious 
to please not only God, but the partner of their earthly pilgrimage. 
Much therefore as there is of blessing in the married state, honour- 
able as it is in all men, and a κοίτη ἀμίαντος, a state undefiled ; still 
those who have contracted it are, like Martha, necessarily “‘ cumbered 
about much serving,”’ whilst the unmarried, like Mary, have more 
leisure to “sit at the feet of Jesus,” able to “" attend upon the Lord 
without distraction.” ? Therefore it is that the Apostle counsels an 
unmarried life, because of ‘ the present distress ;”’ because, it may 
be, of the distress and anxieties of this present life, which are much 
unfavourable to the attainment of holiness, and which especially be- 
set those who are tied in the bond of matrimony.® 

This exposition will fairly satisfy the language both of Christ and 


Rule of Conscience, Book 11. ch. 111. Rule it has been thought that St. Paul espe- 
12. cially alludes to Mary’s “sitting at Jesus’ 
1 1 Cor. vii. 81 : “As though they used ἴδοι, Luke x. 89. 
it not,” ὡς μὴ καταχρώμενοι. Kataxpaodac ὃ Propter instantem necessitatem.] Id 
here probably signifies to use. Comp. 1 est, presentis vite solicitudinem, que 
Cor. vii. 81; ix. 18. i multum potest obesse justitim, et qua 
2 1 Cor. vii. 85. In the words πρὸς τὸ precipue juncti matrimoniis implicantur. 
εὐπρόσεδρον τῷ Κυρίῳ ἀπερισπάστως, — Hieron. in 1 Cor. vii. 


Sec. II] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 851 


of His Apostle. But we deny that St. Paul, when instituting a 
comparison between marriage and celibacy, speaks of the latter as 
having more merit than the former; or that the one shall ensure a 
higher place in Heaven than the other. It may be to some persons 
a state more favourable for growth in grace, though, for obvious 
reasons, it may be a snare to others. But, as marriage is a thing 
holy in itself, so we do not learn that celibacy is holier. ‘+ One is 
not a better chastity than the other. Marriage isa κοίτη ἀμίαντος, an 
undefiled state, and nothing can be cleaner than that which is not 
at all unclean.” ! And therefore, though we fully admit the hon- 
our due to a holy celibacy, we yet deny that it has any merit at all, 
as nothing in man can merit from God; and still more do we deny 
that it can have merit of supererogation.? 

The above are the only arguments from Scripture, adduced by 
Bellarmine, which can be considered as of weight or importance ; 
and we may therefore fairly consider that, in answering them, we 
have shown that Scripture does not countenance the doctrine which 
our fourteenth Article condemns. It remains to show, that there 
are passages and statements in the Scriptures directly at variance 
with that doctrine, and utterly inconsistent with it. 

1. In the first place Scripture shows that all men, even those un- 
der the dominion of grace, are still imperfect and full of infirmity. 
David says, that “there is none that doeth good, no not one” (Ps. 
xiv. 3); St. James says, that “in many things we offend, all” (Jas. 
iii. 2); and St. John says, that “if we say that we have no sin we 
deceive ourselves”’ (1 John i. 8). But if it be true that all men 
have sinned and “in many things offend,” then it is quite clear that 
no man can be so perfectly holy as not only to fulfil all God’s law, 
but even to exceed it. And as the Psalmist spoke, in the four- 


1 Jer. Taylor, as above. 

2 A passage, not noticed by Bellar- 
mine, may seem to countenance the doc- 
trine that the sufferings of the saints 
were beneficial, not only to themselves, 
but to the. Church; and that therefore 
their merits were more than enough for 
their own salvation. The passage is Col. 
i, 24, ‘‘ Who now rejoice in my sufferings 
for you, and fill up that which is behind 
of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for 
His body’s sake, which is the Church.” 
But if we carefully consider the passage, 
we cannot suppose that the Apostle 
means that there was anything deficient 
in the sufferings of Christ, or that His 
infinite merits needed addition from the 
sufferings of His servant. The true 
meaning of the passage is this: Every 


servant of Christ has need to be con- 
formed to the likeness of the sufferings 
of his Lord. St. Paul considered, that 
there was somewhat lacking in him, that 
there was somewhat yet behind of “ the 
affliction of Christ,’ before he could be 
thoroughly conformed to His likeness ; 
and earnestly ‘desiring to be made like 
his Lord, he gladly took every additional 
trial as only bringing him nearer to His 
image ; and all these trials he endured 
for the sake of the Church, which he 
served, and to which he preached the 
, Gospel of Christ. There is no mention 
of vicarious suffering on the part of St. 
Paul, of supererogatory merit, or of addi- 
tion to the full, perfect, and sufficient sac- ~ 
rifice of Christ upon the Cross. 


852 
teenth Psalm, “‘ to those that were under the Law ” (see Rom. iii. 10, 
19), so St. James and St. John evidently spoke to those who were 
under grace; as the whole context evinces. Hence we must con- 
clude that even under grace no man lives actually spotless in God’s 
commandments. 

2. But even if we could live wholly without spot, and never of- 
fend in thought, word, or deed, even so our Lord teaches us that 
such a spotless obedience would still leave us undeserving of reward. 
“¢ When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded 
you, say We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which 
was our duty to do” (Luke xvii. 10). What room is there then 
for the doctrine which teaches, that a man may do enough for his’ 
salvation and attain to glory by keeping the precepts ; and then by 
observing counsels may merit still more ? Even if we could keep all 
the precepts, we should be unprofitable, having no right to reward, 
but merely to exemption from punishment.! Something more than 
obedience to precepts is required, even for salvation; and where, 
then, is the foundation on which to build still higher merit ? 

8. Again, in the parable of the ten virgins, when the five foolish 
virgins found their oil fail, they are represented as going to the wise 
virgins, and asking to borrow oil from them. But the wise an- 
swered that they had not enough for themselves and others too, 
showing that no one can have holiness or grace enough to supply 
another’s deficiencies, but that each one must seek pardon and 
grace for himself (Matt. xxv. 9). 

4. Then the precepts of the Gospel are so ‘full and comprehen- 
sive that everything, even the highest degree of perfection, is con- 
tained in them. Under the Law, indeed, if the letter only was ob- 
served, the statutes contained but a certain express catalogue of du- 
ties: but the spiritual sense of the Law, as enforced by our Saviour, 
enjoins such an entire surrender of all the faculties of the body, 
soul, and spirit to the service of Christ, that nothing conceivable can 
exceed or overpass it. This will be quite apparent, if we read our 
Lord’s exposition of the Law, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 
v. 27, seq.), where a thought or a look of evil is deadly sin ; or 
His declaration that no one can be His disciple who hates not his 


WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. [Arr. XIV. 


1 Quod sub precepto est, si non im- 
pleatur, punit. Impletum morte tantum 
caret; quia nihil ex se dat, sed quod 
debet, exsolvit. — Hieron. in 1 Cor. vii. 

It is true, that the divines of the Ro- 
man communion always presuppose that 
it is the atonement of Christ whieh gives 
efficacy and merit to the works of the 


saints. But we must remember that our 
Lord, in the passage from Luke xvii. 10, 
spoke to His own disciples, — those very 
saints who are supposed not only to have 
merited life, but to have laid up a store 
of good works, more than was 

for their salvation. 


Sec. II.] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 353 


nearest friends and his own life, if need be, for Christ’s service ; 
or His summary of the commandments — unbounded love to God, 
and perfect love to man (Matt. xxii. 37, 38, 39); “* Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy mind; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” 
We cannot conceive either saint or angel more perfect than this: 
and yet all this is commanded — is of the nature of a precept, not 
of counsels only. The language of St. Paul’s exhortation is equally 
strong ; that we present ourselves “as living sacrifices to God ” 
(Rom. xii. 1), that we “ cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh 
and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. vii. 1). 
«« Finally, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, 
whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are lovely, whatso- 
ever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there 
be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. iv. 8). Can any- 
thing go beyond these things which it is our duty to do? But if 
any man seem to be contentious, St. Peter tells us, as a plain com- 
mand, to aim “to be holy as Christ is holy ” (1 Pet. i. 15, 16): 
and Christ Himself concludes His teaching concerning the strict 
and spiritual nature of the Law with the words, “ Be ye therefore 
perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect ” (Matt. v. 48). 
Till then we can learn that God’s grace has ever made man as 
perfect as God, we can never believe that man has ever fully lived 
up to the precepts of the Gospel. Where is the room for higher 
graces still ? 

5. Lastly, we may observe that the whole of the doctrine of 
works of supererogation arises from a false view of the principles 
of Christian obedience. If we look for merit, it must be to 
Christ. Christian obedience is not a task of so much work to be 
done, and so much reward to be-expected. When it is sound and 
perfect, it springs from a true faith and a holy love. And as no 
degree of perfection can excel the obedience which would be 
yielded by perfect love, so nothing can excel that holiness at 
which every Christian is bound to aim. The obedience of the 
Gospel is not the task-work of a slave, but the perfect freedom 
of a son. 


a ΡΨ ΠΥ 


ARTICLE XV. 


--ο--- 


Of Christ alone without Sin. 


Curist in the truth of our nature was 
made like unto us in all things, sin onl 
except ; from which He was clearly void, 
both in His flesh and in His Spirit. He 
eame to be the lamb without spot, who, 
by sacrifice of himself once made, should 
take away the sins of the world; and sin 
(48 St. John saith) was notin Him. But 
all we the rest, although baptized and 
born again in Christ, yet offend in many 
things ; and if we say we have no sin, we 
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in 


De Christo, qui solus est sine peccato, 


CurisTus, in nostre nature veritate, 
per omnia similis factus est nobis, excepto 
peccato, a quo prorsus erat immunis, tum 
in carne, tum in Spiritu. Venit ut Agnus, 
absque macula, qui mundi peccata per im- 
molationem sui semel factam tolleret, et 
peccatum (ut inquit Johannes) in eo non 
erat: sed nos reliqui etiam baptizati, et 
in Christo regenerati, in multis tamen 
offendimus omnes. Et si dixerimus, 
quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos 
seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est. 





Section I.— HISTORY. 


“ΠΗ history of the greater part of the doctrine contained in 

this Article may be considered as involved in the history 
of some of the preceding Articles, especially of the ninth. We 
spoke there of the Pelagian heresy, and observed that Pelagius 
held that it was possible for a man, even without the grace of 
God, to keep God’s law, and live a life of perfect holiness. St. 
Augustine, we saw in his arguments against Pelagianism, still 
expressed unwillingness to discuss the question of the sinfulness of 
the blessed Virgin Mary, out of reverence to her Son and Lord. 
Pelagius had held that it was necessary for our religion that we 
should confess the Virgin to be sinless (7. ὁ. that we might not hold 
our Saviour to be born in sin). St. Augustine answers, ‘* Con- 
cerning the Virgin Mary, I am not willing, for the honour of our 
Lord, to hold any dispute, when we are talking about sin. For 
how do we know what more grace was bestowed on her to over- 
come all sin, who had the honour to conceive and bring forth 
Him who certainly had no sin?” ! 


1 August. De Natura et Gratia. Wall, 
Inf. Bapt. 1. p. 404. The passage from 
oe is from ο. 42. Tom. x. p. 


Excepta itaque sancta virgine Maria, 


de qua propter honorem Domini nullam 
prorsus cum de peccatis agitur, haberi 
volo questionem. Unde enim scimus, 
quid ei plus gratie collatum fuerit ad 
vincendum omni ex parte peccatum ? &c. 


ΡΤ ΨΥ ΥΥ ΨΨῃῳΝ 


See. 17] OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 356 


This scruple, which early prevailed about the Virgin, in the 
course of years grew into a doctrine. But for a length of time 
the doctrine was privately held, not publicly expressed. In the 
year 1186 the Canons of Lyons brought the doctrine of the Im- 
maculate Conception of the Virgin into the ecclesiastical offices ; 
for which act of rashness they were severely censured by St. Ber- 
nard. But about the year 1300, the celebrated Schoolman, John 
Duns Scotus, a Franciscan Friar, strenuously maintained the total 
exemption from sin of the Blessed Virgin, and grounded it upon 
the omnipotency of God, who could free her from sin, if He chose. 
Thenceforward the Scotists and Franciscans ever advocated. the 
dogma of the Immaculate Conception.} 

At the Council of Trent this question was hotly debated ; the 
Franciscans excepting the Virgin from all taint of sin, the Domin- 
icans labouring to comprehend her name under the common law. 
The pope commanded that the contention on the subject should 
be omitted, for fear of causing a schism. Both parties acquiesced 
in silence, on the condition that when the decrees were made it 
should merely be added that there was no intention to include the 
Blessed Virgin in the decrees concerning original sin.2 It was 
therefore left an open question, although the Franciscans had the 


better reason of the two parties to be satisfied.® 


1 Sarpi, Council of Trent, p. 178. 

2 Sarpi, pp. 164, 169, 171. 

8 [Some further historical details may 
properly be added, relating to the action 
of the papacy. 

In 1476, Sixtus IV. issued the Bull 
Cum Precelsa. In it he encouraged the 
celebration of the Festival of the Immac- 
ulate Conception. In 1488, by the Bull 
Grave nimis, he forbade that either those 
who hold the opinion of the immaculate 
conception, or those who hold its con- 
trary, should be charged with heresy or 
mortal sin. These two Bulls were for- 
mally accepted by the Council of Trent. 
Sess. V. Decree concerning Original Sin. 

In 1570, Pius V. issued the Bull Super 
Speculam. This Bull allowed either opin- 
ion, and forbade all controversy in pub- 
lic, though it allowed discussion in the 
schools. 

In 1617, Paul LV. issued the Bull Beati 

cifici, in which, under heavy penalties, 
ne renewed the constitutions of Sixtus 
IV. and Pius V. 

In 1622, Gregory XV. took a step in 
advanee, by forbidding any one, till it 
should be otherwise ordered, to assert in 
publiv that the Virgin was conceived in 
original sin, though he declared that he 


did not deny or controvert the opinion 
that she was. At the same time he al- 
lowed any one to assert the immaculate 
conception, only not attacking the other 
opinions, while, without permission from 


+ 


the Holy See, no one was permitted to as- | 


sert the conception in original sin at all. 
In the same year another Bull, Eximii at- 
que Singularis, allowed the Dominicans, in 
their own schools, to discuss the opinion. 
Alexander VII., in 1671, issued the 
Bull Solicitudo omnium Eeclesiarum, which, 
while it favoured the opinion of the im- 
maculate conception, yet forbade those 
who held the opposite opinion to be 
charged with heresy. , 
Finally, on the 8th of December, 1854, 
Pius IX. by the Bull /neffubilis, created 
this opinion into an Article of the Faith, 
without even the pretence of consulting 
a General Council, consolidating and con. 
centrating in himself a power, in spiritu- 
alibus, which neither Hildebrand nor In- 
nocent had ever attempted to exercise, 
and accepting, or rather demanding, as- 
sent to the most w/tramontane theory of 
the papal authority. There the matter 
rests at present, but the end is not yet. _ 
Already the claim is advanced, that 
the Blessed Virgin merited this grace of 


—— sie se” = Ὺ - ee ἘΝ θα ee eee eee 


856 OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. [Arr XY. 


It was also decreed in the Council of Trent that all the taint of 
original sin is washed away in baptism.! And the Lutherans were 
condemned for saying that God’s commands were not possible to 
the just.2 From these canons of the council it might naturally 
follow, that a person baptized and justified may fully keep God’s 
commands, and live a life of spotless holiness. But what is even 
more to the purpose still, is the Romish doctrine of works of 
supererogation. For, if such works are possible, it must first be 

, possible that he who does them should be perfectly sinless. Other- 
wise he could not do, not only his duty, but more than his 
duty. Accordingly this Article of our Church, ‘ Of Christ alone 
without sin,” follows immediately on that concerning Works of 
Supererogation. The one is very probably intended as a supple- 
ment and strengthener to the other ; so that, whereas in the last 
Article it was said that no man can do more than God’s law 
requires, so in this it is added, that no man in this life can fully 
live up to its requirements, but all offend many times; and none, 
even of the baptized and regenerate, is quite free from sin. 

That part of the Article which alleges that Christ was free 
from sin need not be considered historically, for none but those 
who’ deny His Divinity can deny His sinlessness, ἀπά the 
greatest heretics, even mere Humanitarians, have respected the 
Saviour as a pure and holy Being. 





Srcrion Il. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


HE subjects treated on in the Article are, — 
I. That Christ was without sin, although in all other things 
made like unto us. 
II. That all other men (even though baptized and born again 
in Christ) 7et offend in many things. 


I. That Christ, though perfect man, was yet free from sin, prop- 


‘ 
the immaculate conception, because of of the Immaculate Conception, may well be 
her holiness in a preézistent state. How consulted; while, to see the weakness of 
long will it take to extend that preéxist- the arguments in defence of this fearful 
ence to eternity, and then to argue from novelty, one need only read the Treatise 
eternal paetenne, participation in the Divine of ithe Cardinal ny bruschini. —J. W.] 
v 


. v. Can. 6. 
The Abbé Laborde, On the Impossibility ὁ Sess. vr. Can. 18. 


Se ee ὩΦΦΦΨΕΡΦΘῸῸῸΦ ΝΥΝ ἀν" 
ἊΨ τ 


‘Sec. 117 OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 857 


erly forms a part of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and is there- 
fore intimately connected with Article II. 

The eternal Son of God, the second Person in the Godhead, 
took into that Person the perfect nature of man. That nature of 
man had become defiled and debased. And it was that He might 
purify and restore it that He took it into Himself. But the ques- 
tion is, whether, when He took the nature, He was obliged to take 
its corruption with it. If so, we may well believe that the Incar- 
nation would have been impossible. God is of purer eyes than to 
behold iniquity. Much less can we suppose that God would take 
iniquity and corruption to Himself, into union with His own “ne 
less purity and holiness. 

But though human nature, in all naturally engendered of Adam, 
is stained with the sin of Adam, yet sin is not a part of human 
nature, but a fault of it.1 The Manicheans held that matter was 
essentially evil, and so human nature was evil, because matter was 
a part of it. But matter as well as spirit comes from God, and so 
is of itself, like all His creatures, ‘‘ very good.” Sin, therefore, 
which we all inherit, is a corruption and evil addition to our nature, 
not an essential and integral part of it. Whether it consists in 
a withdrawal of the indwelling and presence of God, and a con- 
sequent rebellion of the lower principles of man’s nature,? or 
whether there be moreover a kind of taint or poison, which, work- 
ing in him, produces sin, and renders him liable to death ; in either 
case original sin is not human nature, but an accident of that 
nature ; a quality as distinct from humanity as is any particular 
bodily disease, such as madness, or consumption, or neuralgia. 

When therefore Christ took our nature, it was not essential to 
its perfection that He should take our sinfulness. Sin not being 
a part, but a fault of nature, He might be “made in all things 
like unto us,” even though sin were excepted. Our liability to 
sin indeed He must have taken; for else He could not have been 
‘in all things tempted like as we are.” Adam had a liability to 
sin, and therefore was susceptible of temptation, before he was 


1The Manichees held that sin was a 
natura non a culpa: 7. e. because they 
thought one portion of our nature (7. e. 
the body) essentially evil. But the fa- 
thers taught that it was not τῆς φύσεως, 
ἀλλὰ τῆς κακῆς προαιρέσεως : “ποὺ of na- 
ture, but of an evil determination of the 
will: ” (see History of Art. rx. note). 
And our ninth Article teaches, not that 
it is part of our nature, but “ the fault and 
corruption of our nature.” 


2 « Man’s corruption consists, first, in 
the deprivation of the Divine guidance, 
which he has rejected, for ‘the light 
shined in darkness, and the darkness 
comprehended it not ;’’ and secondly, in 
the correspondent rebellion of the low- 
er principles of his body and his soul.” 
— Wilberforce on The Incarnation, Ὁ 
74. 


i 


858 OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. (Arr. XV. 


actually guilty of sin, and so defiled and corrupted by it. And 
Christ, who was the second Adam, who came on purpose that He 
might conquer where Adam had fallen, and so restore that nature 
which Adam had. debased, was, by the constitution of that nature 
which He adopted, liable to be assailed by the same dangers that 
Adam had been assailed by. But His own essential holiness and 
the supporting power of his Godhead enabled Him to endure 
temptation, and so made it impossible that He should fall under 
it. Thus He became a fit representative of our race, as much as 
Adam was. He had all our nature, with all its natural weak- 
nesses ; and all that He lacked was that which was no proper 
part of, but only a vicious addition to our nature, namely, our sin. 
Nay, He even condescended to take our sicknesses. He was liable 
to hunger and weariness, and death. Many indeed of our sick- 
‘nesses are the natural results of sin, of gluttony or intemperance, 
anger or passion. These He, who had no sin, could not have. 
Yet He took, not only human nature, but mortal nature; and 
though He was too holy to defile Himself with our sin, yet He 
was not too glorious to submit to our death. 

The passages of Scripture which prove this part of the doctrine 
of the Article, are sufficiently numerous and familiar. Thus it is 
announced to Mary, “ That Holy Thing which shall be born of 
thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke i. 35). ““ The prince 
of this world,” said our Lord, “ hath nothing in Me ”’ (John xiv. 30). 
He was “the Holy One, and the just” (Acts iii. 14). God “ made 
Him to be sin for us who knew no sin” (2 Cor. v. 21). “* He was 
in all things tempted like as we are, yet without sin ” (Heb. iv. 15). 
“ An High Priest, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners. 
and made higher than the heavens; ”’ not like those “ high priests 
who have infirmity,” and needing to “offer up sacrifices, first for 
their own sins, and then for the people’s”” (Heb. vii. 26, 27, 28). 
He “ did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth ” (1 Pet. ii. 
22). He “was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is 
no sin” (1 John iii. δ). 

The words of the Article, that “* He came to be the Lamb with- 
out spot” are from the following : — 

‘“‘ He was led as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before 
her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth” (Isai. iii. 
Τὴ). “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, 
Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world”’ 
(John i. 29). ‘Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered 
Himself without spot to God” (Heb. ix. 14). Redeemed “ with 


See. IL] OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 359 


the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and 
without spot” (1 Pet. i. 19. Comp. Exod. xii. 5; Lev. xxii. 19, 
20, 21). 


II. The second part of the Article, that “all other men offend 
in many things, even though baptized and born again,” has been 
already considered at some length under the ninth Article. It 
was there shown that the taint of sin pervaded the whole human. 
race, and that every one naturally born of Adam was subject to it ; 
that even the regenerate had still the remains of such corruption ; 
and that that concupiscence, which still remains in them, has the 
nature of sin.? 

It may be sufficient here to recite a few of the passages of 
Scripture on which more especially the proof of this assertion 
depends. 

“If they sin against thee,” says Solomon, “ for there is no man 
that sinneth not” (1 Kings viii. 46). “In Thy sight,” says David, 
ἐς shall no man living be justified” (Ps. exliii. 2). ‘* Who can say,” 
asks the wise man, “I have made my heart clean, I am pure from 
my sin?” (Prov. xx. 9). “ We have proved both Jews and Gen- 
tiles, that they are all under sin” (Rom. iii. 9). ‘ Death passed 
upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. v. 12). ‘The 
Scripture hath concluded all under sin” (Gal. iii. 22). ““ In many 
things we offend, all” (James iii. 2). “If we say that we have 
no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 
i. 8). “¢ Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey 
it in the lusts thereof” (Rom. vi. 12). “41 had not known sin but 
by the Law: for I had not known lust except the Law had said, 
Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. vii. 7). So“ the flesh lusteth against 
the Spirit” (Gal. v. 17). 

The last two passages show that lust or concupiscence hath the 
nature of sin. 

2. The principal objections which may be urged against this 
part of the doctrine of the Article, are such as the following. 

In some passages of Scripture people are called blameless: as 
(Luke i. 6), Zacharias and Elizabeth are spoken of as “ both 
righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordi- 
nances of the Lord, blameless.” In a like manner St. Paul speaks 
of himself as having “lived in all good conscience before God to 
this day” (Acts xxiii. 1); as exercising himself “to have a con- 


1 Ανϑρώπων οὐδεὶς ἀναμάρτητος, ἑνὶ γὰρ μαρτυρεῖται, ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε, Basil 
M. Orat. de Peenitentia.  Suicer. τ. 207. : ' 


Se ae ee Wl nn iii Ἔνωυσυνν ψν ΣΝ ee IP oF 7+. * } 


800. OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. fArr. XV. 


science void of offence toward God and toward man”’ (Acts xxiv. 
16); as having been before his conversion, “touching the right- 
eousness which is in the Law, blameless” (Phil. iii. 6). 

Such passages seem to argue blameless perfection. But we may 
answer that Zacharias could not have been perfect, or he would 
not. have disbelieved the Angel when he promised him a son, and 
so have been smitten with dumbness for his want of faith (Luke i. 
20). St. Paul, when he speaks of himself as blameless touching 
the righteousness of the Law, was a persecutor of the Church, and 
though he did it ignorantly in unbelief, and so obtained mercy, yet 
we can hardly consider it as consistent with perfection ; and though 
he speaks of himself as exercising himself to have a conscience void 
of offence, yet we know that he did “ not count himself to have 
apprehended,” that he was sensible of “ infirmities” (see 2 Cor. 
xi. 80; xii. 10, &c.) ; that he felt it necessary to “ keep under his 
body, and bring it into subjection” (1 Cor. ix. 27). Nay, we 
know that he was liable to infirmity, for so sharp a contention rose 
between him and Barnabas, that they could not continue together 
in the work of the Gospel, but were obliged to separate one from 
another. We must therefore understand the word blameless in a 
more popular sense, not as if those of whom it is predicated were 
free from all stain of sin, but as meaning that they lived an upright, 
godly life, ever striving to keep a conscience free from offence, and 
never yielding to those wilful sins which offend society, or destroy 
the work of God’s grace in the soul, or even give cause of deep 
and bitter regret to him who yields to them. 

Again, it is said of the Christian under grace, that “ the law of 
the Spirit of life makes him free from the law of sin and death” 
(Rom. viii. 2). This is true of all good Christians, but it does 
not mean that they are made perfect and wholly free from sin, but 
that the Spirit of God sets them free from the bondage and slavery 
of sin, and gives them freedom and strength to “ fulfil the right- 
eousness of the Law.” 

The same reasoning nearly applies to the words of St. John, 
“ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin’? (1 John iii. 9). 
This is true of every regenerate man as regards his new nature, the 
new man created in him. That new man is pure and holy, hating 
sin and avoiding it. Still however there are the remains of the 
old ‘man, causing in him those infirmities which more or less are 
common to all. A regenerate man does not live in admitted sin. 
If he does, his new life has failed and is stifled. But, he still * in 
many things offends,” and, “if he says he has no sin, he deceives 


Sec. ΗΠ OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. . 861 


himself ;”’ because, in this world, the old nature may be kept in 
subjection and bondage, but is never thoroughly extinguished, un- 
til the last enemy has been destroyed, and all things are put in 
subjection under the feet of Christ. 

It is true, we are bid to be holy, as Christ is holy (1 Pet. i. 
15) ; to ‘be perfect, as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect” 
(Matt. v. 48). But we can infer from these exhortations no more 
than this. It is our part to set before us the highest. possible 
standard at which to aim. Christ took our nature, that He might 
make us partakers of His nature ; and we are never to be satisfied, 
unless we grow daily more and more like to Him. But it does 
not follow, that we shall ever attain to such perfect conformity 
to His Image, until we become “like Him, by seeing Him as 
He is.” 

We come, lastly, to consider the case of the Blessed’ Virgin. 
That she was a person of most singular holiness, most highly hon- 
oured of God, and most affectionately beloved by her Divine Son, 
no candid reader of Scripture can doubt. The Angel salutes her, 
* Hail, thou that art highly favoured:! the Lord is with thee ; 
Blessed art thou among women” (Luke i. 28). Her cousin 
Elizabeth saluted her, by the Holy Ghost, saying, “" Blessed art 
thou among women ;”’ and though she was her near kinswoman, 
yet wondered at the honour done to herself in that ‘the Mother 
of her Lord should come unto her ” (Luke i. 42, 48). Mary her- 
self said of herself, that ‘¢all generations should call her blessed ” 
(Luke i i. 48). The Lord in His youth was subject to her (Luke 
ii, 51). At His death, and with His dying accents, He com- 
mended her to the care and guardianship of His. most devoted and 
best loved disciple (John xix. 26, 27). We learn of her, that she 
was the first who, hearing the blessed teaching of her Son, ‘ kept 
all His sayings in her heart.” (Luke ii. 51).. We find. her following 
Him, with unwearied and dauntless affection, to the foot of His 
Cross (John xix. 25) ; and, when all but His most faithful followers 
were dispersed, continuing with the Apostles ‘“‘ with one accord in 
prayer and supplication” (Acts i. 14). 

All this is but what we should expect. Doubtless among women 
there never lived a holier than she who was chosen to the highest 
honour that ever befel created being. That honour, indeed, to be 
the tabernacle of Incarnate Godhead, to cherish the infant years, 
minister to the wants, and soothe, if such there were, the early 
sufferings of the Redeemer of mankind, to be the only earthly 


1 Κεχαριτωμένη. The margin has “ Or, graciously accepted, or, much graced.”” 
46 


8602. OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 


instrument by which God wrought the mystery of the Incarna- 
tion, is an honour so high that we can hardly wonder if ages of 
ignorance gave undue reverence to her who had such favour of 
God.! 

Yet it has been remarked that on three separate occasions our 
Lord and her Lord used of, and to her, language at least border- 
ing on censure. At the marriage in Cana, the words, “" Woman, 
what have I to do with thee?” (John ii. 4) (though not sound- 
ing so strong in the Greek as in the English language) have been 
esteemed in all ages as words of rebuke.? Before this, when He 
was but twelve years old (Luke ii. 49), as His mother and Joseph 
sought for Him, He reproves them for not knowing the high mis- 
sion on which He came: ‘ How is it that ye sought Me? Wist 
ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?” Lastly, 
when His mother and His brethren sought to speak with Him, the 
answer to those who told Him of it was, “" Who are My mother 
and My brethren? And He stretched forth His hand towards 
His disciples and said, Behold My mother and My brethren! 
For, whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in Heaven, 
the same is My brother, and sister, and mother” (Matt. xii. 48, 
49, 50). 

Very similar to this was that saying, when a certain woman 
*‘ lifted up her voice and said unto Him, Blessed is the womb that 
bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked. But He said, 
Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep 
it’ (Luke xi: 27, 28). There was indeed no denial of the blessed- 
ness of being His mother ; still less was there any denial that His 
mother was blessed. But the privilege of being the mother of 
Jesus was not in itself so great as the blessing of doing the will 
of God. Now those who argue that the Virgin was perfectly free 
from sin, argue so from the very fact of her being the mother of 
the Immaculate Saviour. But surely, if the fact of being His 


[Arr. XV. 


1 “Man is a creature of extremes... . 
Because Papists have made too much of 
things, Protestants have made too little 
of them . . ... Because one party has 
exalted the. Virgin Mary to a divinity, 
the other can scarcely think of that most 
highly favoured among women with com- 
mon te ape — Remains of the Rev. Rich- 
πον , p. 864. Ninth Edition. Lond. 
4 τί ἐμοὶ καὶ cot γύναι; the word γύναι 
ἐπ easily be used as a term of respect, 
and might as well have been rendered 
“lady” as “woman.” Every one knows 


that ladies of the highest rank would have 
been so addressed in Greek. But the 
fathers all acknowledged rebuke in the 
sentence. ἐπέπληττε τῇ μητρί, says Atha- 
nasius ( Contra Arian, Orat. 4) ; ἐπετίμησεν 
ἀκαΐρως αἰτούσῃ, says Chrysostom (Jn Matt. 
hom, 45); Ὁ δὲ ἐπιτιμᾷ αὐτῇ οὐκ ἀλόγως, 
says Theophylact. See Beveridge on 
this Article. Epiphanius says that these 
words were used that no one might 
esteem the Blessed Virgin of a higher 
nature than woman, with special view to 
the heresies which would one day arise 
(Heres. 79, Collyridiani). 


wi. oldie! tat eb SR he ak 


Sec. 11.1 OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 363 


mother proved that she was sinless, it would have brought with it, 
or have been the proof of, a blessing so great that there could have 
been no room for the ‘“‘ Yea! rather blessed.” 

We may conclude, therefore, that the Virgin Mary, though 
“highly favoured,” ‘blessed among women,” and, doubtless, unu- 
sually sanctified, was yet no exception to the rule that all man- 
_ kind, Christ only excepted, are stained with sin, and liable to offend 
in many things. 


1 The subject of the Perpetual Vir- 
ginity of the Virgin Mary, which has 
some affinity to the question discussed 
in the text, may be seen treated at length 
by Pearson On the Creed, Article, “ Born 


of the Virgin Mary.’ See especially the 
notes. See also Jer. Taylor’s Life of 
Christ, § 2. Bp. Bull’s Works, 1. Serm. 
1v.; and Professor Mill’s Accounts of our 
Lord’s Brethren. 


ARTICLE XVI. 


ay oan 


Of Sin after Baptism. 


Nor every deadly sin willingly commit- 
ted after baptism is sin against the Holy 
Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore 
the grant of repentance is not to be de- 
nied to such as fall into sin after baptism. 
After we have received the Holy Ghost 
we may depart from grace given and fall 
into sin, and by the grace of God we 
may arise again and amend our lives. 
And therefore they are to be condemned 
which say they‘can no more sin as long 
as they live here, or deny the place of 
forgiveness to such as truly repent. 


De Peccato Post Baptismum. 


Now omne peccatum mortale post bap- 
tismum voluntarie perpetratum, est pec- 
catum in Spiritum Sanctum, et irre- 
missibile. Proinde lapsis a baptismo in 
peccata, locus penitenti# non est negan- 
dus. Post acceptum Spiritum Sanctum 
possumus a gratia data recedere, atque 
peccare, denuoque per gratiam Dei re- 
surgere, ac resipiscere ; ideoque illi dam- 
nandi sunt, qui se, quamdiu hic vivant, 
amplius non posse peccare affirmant, aut 
vere resipiscentibus venie locum dene- 
gant. 





ΞΈΟΤΙΟΝ I. — HISTORY. 


HE Article as it now stands is very nearly the same as the 
fifteenth Article of a. p. 1552. But in the Articles of 1552, 
the sixteenth Article followed out the subject of the fifteenth, and 
treated expressly of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 
The Article which we now have, treats of, or alludes to 
I. Deadly sin after baptism, and the possibility of repentance for 


such sin. 


II. The sin against the Holy Ghost. 
III. The possibility of falling from grace. 
The first of these three divisions is that which forms the main 


subject of the Article; the other two being incidentally alluded 
to. The third, however, is spoken of in somewhat decided terms, 
and being a point on which there has been no little controversy, re- 
quires to be considered. 


I. As regards the possibility of repentance and forgiveness for 
sins committed after baptism and the grace of God, there was some 
stir even in early ages of the Church. 

Some of the Gnostics, who affected great asceticism, appear to 
have held also very rigid notions of the divine justice and the irre- 


TS a 


880. L.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 365 


missibility of sins. Clement of Alexandria says that Basilides 
taught that ‘not all sins, but only sins which were committed 
involuntarily or through ignorance, were forgiven.” + 

The Church itself in early times was very severe in its censures 
against heinous crimes, and very slow in admitting offenders to 
Church-communion. It appears that in the second and third cen- 
turies, persons who committed small sins might be admitted fre- 
quently to repentance, but that great and flagrant offenders were 
put to penance and reconciled to the Church but once. In the 
case indeed of some very grievous, deadly, and often-repeated sins, 
the Church seems to have refused communion even at the last hour. 
The meaning of which severity doubtless was, that offenders might 
not mock God and the Church with feigned repentance, turning 
again to sin like the swine to their wallowing in the mire.? 

The Montanists carried this rigour much farther than the Cath- 
olics ; for they not only refused repeated penances and reconcilia- 
tion, but did not allow to the Church the power of forgiving great 
sins after baptism, even once. Tertullian, in those writings which 
he composed before he became a Montanist, speaks of grievous sins 
as once, and but once, remitted by the Church. After he had 
joined the sect of the Montanists, he distinguishes between venial 
sins, (such as causeless anger, evil speaking, rash swearing, false- 
hood,) and sins of a heinous and deadly character, such as murder, 
idolatry, fraud, denying Christ, blasphemy, adultery, fornication. 
Of these latter he says there is no remission, and that even Christ 
will not intercede for them.® 

St. Clement of Alexandria in one place seems to say that there 
is no repentance but once after baptism.* It is probable that he 
refers to a passage in the Pastor of Hermas, where we read that 
there is but one penitence, namely, when we descend into the water, 
and so receive remission of sins.6 But whereas it is pretty certain 
that Hermas speaks of the repentance and remission of sins in 
baptism to be once given and never repeated, but does not thereby 


1 Clem. Alex. Strom. 1v. p. 634, Pot- 
ter; Mosheim, De Rebus ante Constant. 
sec. 2, c. 48; King, On the Creed, p. 358; 
Bp. Kaye’s Clem. Alex. p. 269. 

2 See this subject fully considered by 
Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. Bk. xvi. ὁ. X.}; 
Bk. xvii. c. 1v. He quotes Hermas, 
Clem. Alex., Tertull., Origen, the Coun- 
cil of Eliberis, Ambros., Augustine, &c. ; 
see especially Bk. xvii. c. tv. § 1. 

8 Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, pp. 20, 254, 
339; Tertullian, De Pudicitia, c. 19; see 
also Lardner, Hist. of Heretics, Bk. 11. 


ch. x1x. sect. 8; Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. 
Cent. 11. pt. 11. ch. v. 

£'O μὲν οὖν ἐξ ἐϑνῶν καὶ τῆς προβιότητος 
ἐκείνης ἐπὶ τὴν πίστιν ὁρμῆσας, ἅπαξ ἔτυχεν 
ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν. ὁ δὲ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἁμαρ- 
τήσας, εἶτα μετανοῶν, Kav συγγνώμης τυγ- 
χάνῃ, αἰδεῖσϑαι ὀφείλει, μηκέτι λουόμενος εἰς 
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν... . δόκησις τοΐνυν μετα- 
νοίας, ob μετάνοια, τὸ πολλάκις αἰτεῖσϑαι 
συγγνώμην, ἐφ᾽ οἷς πλημμελοῦμεν πολλάκις. 
— Stromat. 11. ὃ 18, p. 460. 

5 Hani Past. Mandat. tv. 8; Cotel. 
p. 96. 


366 


mean to exclude from repentance after baptism ;} so it appears that 
Clement of Alexandria speaks either of one public penance, which 
might be conceded by the Church, or that he simply means that 
to repent and return again continually to former sins proves the 
repentance not to have been real, but feigned and hypocritical. 
Yet some have thought that the language both of Hermas and 
Clement prepared the way for the severity of Origen and the errors 
of the Novatians. 

Origen appears to have thrown out the opinion, that persons who 
had once embraced the Gospel and been baptized, and then denied 
the faith, could not be readmitted to repentance nor obtain pardon 
of sin.’ 

The sect of the Novatians arose about the middle of the third 
century. Novatian, their founder, a presbyter of Rome, had on a 
former occasion been chosen by the Church of that city to write to 
Cyprian on the subject of restoring the lapsed to communion.* In 
the: year 251, Cornelius was elected Bishop of Rome, a post to 
which Novatian aspired. Novatian had himself secured three 
bishops, ignorant and inexperienced men, to consecrate him to the 
bishopric. But not succeeding in his hopes of holding possession 
of the see, he set up a schismatical communion. He does not 
appear to have held any heretical doctrine ; but he denied to the 
Church the power of restoring to communion those who had lapsed 
in persecution. Eusebius indeed says, that he denied to them the 
hope of salvation ;® but it seems more probable, from the language 
of Cyprian and others, that he exhorted them to repent, and to seek 
for pardon, but refused to offer them any consolation, or to admit 
them again to any church-privilege in this life.® 


OY SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Arr. XVI. 


1 Consult Cotelerius’s note on this pas- 
ange of Hermas. 

2 So his words are explained by Lum- 
per, Hist. Theolog. Crit. Tom. iv. p. 888. 
Bp. Jeremy Taylor writes, “ Whereas 
some of them”’ (7. e. of the fathers) ‘‘ use 
to say that after baptism, or after the 
first relapse, they are ‘ unpardonable,’ 
we must know that in the style of the 
Church, ‘unpardonable ’ signifies such 
to which, by the discipline and customs 
of the Church, pardon may not be min- 
istered. They were called ‘unpardona- 
ble,’ not because God would not pardon 
them, but because He alone could.” — 
On Repentance, ch. 1x. § 8. All that is 
said in this section about the fathers’ doc- 
trine of repentance is well worth reading. 

ὃ Origen. Tract. 85 in Mattheum; see 
Abp. Potter’s note on the before-cited 
passage of Clem. Alex, 


* The letter is in the collection of the 
letters of Cyprian, Epis. xxx. 

δ H. E. νι. 48; ὡς μηκέτ᾽ οὔσης αὐτοῖς 
σωτηρίας ἐλπίδος. So Epiphan. Adv. Her. 
Her. Xxx1x. λέγων μὴ εἶναι σωτηρίαν, ἀλλὰ 
μίαν μετάνοιαν. 

ὁ Epist. 55, juxta sinem. There he 
describes the Novatians as urging re- 
pentance, but excluding from peace : 
‘‘hortari ad satisfactionis peenitentiam, et 
subtrahere de satisfactione medicinam ; 
dicere fratribus nostris, plange et lacry- 
mas funde, et diebus ac noctibus inge- 
misee, et pro abluendo et purgando ἃς. 
licto tuo largiter et frequenter operare, 
sed extra ecclesiam post omnia ista mo- 
rieris : quecumque ad pacem pertinent, 
facies, sed nullam pacem, quam queris, 
accipies.” 


iT ae Ae .... 


sxe: I.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 


867 


Whether he extended this severity to heinous sins in general is 
not apparent ; but it seems that the sect of the Novatians, who 
owed their origin to him, refused communion to the penitent after 
other heavy offences besides lapsing in persecution.| The Nova- 
tians arrogated to themselves the title of Cathari, or pure; and re- 
fused to acknowledge the baptism of those Churches which ad- 
mitted the lapsed to penance and communion. - 

The Church Catholic, however, rejected at once the severity of 
Novatian’s sentiments. Eusebius, on the authority of Cornelius, 
mentions a council of bishops, who met at Rome and condemned 
the folly of Novatian.? Still the sect of the Cathari continued, and 
appears to have flourished throughout the fourth and part of the 
fifth century. But the fathers of the Church uniformly esteemed 
them heretics, and expressed their belief in the remissibility of sin, 
on repentance, after baptism.® 

St. Cyprian says, that to a lapsed Christian, who repents, prays, 
and exerts himself, God gives pardon and restores his arms, so that 
he may fight again, strengthened for the conflict by the very sor- 
row for his sins. And he, thus strengthened by the Lord, may 
make glad the Church, which he had saddened, and obtain not 
only pardon, but a crown. St. Gregory Nazianzen calls penitence 
another baptism, but rougher and more troublesome ; and says that 
owning the infirmity and fickleness of man, he gratefully accepts 
for himself, and willingly imparts to others, this grace of repent- 
ance ; aware that he himself is compassed with infirmities, and that 
with that measure he metes it shall be measured to him again, 
The Novatian he calls the modern Pharisee, and asks if he would 
not have allowed the repentance of David, or the return of Peter 
after he had denied his Lord, or the contrition of the incestuous 
Corinthian, to whom St. Paul confirmed his love. 


1 “Tgitur, hoe nullum habet dubium, 
adultam ecclesiam Novatianam non 
modo perfidos Christianos, verum etiam 
omnium capitalium criminum reos alie- 
nos a se voluisse.’”” — Mosheim, De Rebus 
ante Constant. Magnum, sec. tertium, ὃ 
XVI. 

2 H. E. νι. 43, juxta finem. 

8 See Cyprian, Eusebius, and Epipha- 
nius, as above; Mosheim, De Rebus ante 
Constant. Magnum, sec. 111. §§ xv. XvI.; 
Lardner, 111. pt. 11. ch. 47; Cave, Histor. 
Liter. Tom. 1. p. 91. 

4 “Peenitenti, operanti, roganti, potest 
(Deus) clementer ignoscere .. . . dat Ille 
et arma rursus quibus victus armetur, 
reparat et corroborat vires, quibus fides 
instaurata vegetetur. Repetet certamen 


suum miles, iterabit aciem, provocabit 
hostem, et quidem factus ad preelium 
fortior per dolorem. Qui sie Deo satis- 
fecerit, qui peenitentia facti sui, qui pu- 
dore delicti, plus et virtutis et fidei de 
ipso lapsus sui dolore conceperit, exau- 
ditus et adjutus a Domino, quam con- 
tristaverat’ nuper, letam faciet Eccle- 
siam : nec jam solam Dei veniam merebi- 
tur, sed coronam.” Cypr. De Lapsis, jin 
. 188. 
roe Oida καὶ πέμπτον (βάπτισμα) ἔτι τῶν 
δακρύων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπονώτερον. ὡς ἢ λούων καϑ' 
ἑκάστην νύκτα τὴν κλίνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὴν 
στρωμενὴν τοῖς δάκρυσιν... . ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν 
(ἄνϑρωπος εἶναι γὰρ ὁμολογῶ ζῶον τρεπτὸν 
καὶ ῥευστῆς φύσεως) καὶ δέχομαι τοῦτο mpo- 
ϑύμως, καὶ προσκυνῶ: τὸν δεδωκότα, καὶ Τοῖς 


ea ee ee a Ah 


368 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 


St. Ambrose says, that, as our blessed Lord calls all that are 
weary and heavy laden to come unto Him, those cannot be reckoned 
as His disciples, who, whilst they have need of mercy themselves, 
yet deny it to others.’ The Novatians granted pardon to smaller, 
not to greater crimes ; but God, says St. Ambrose, makes no such 
distinction, who has promised His mercy to all, and gives to all 
His priests the power of loosing without any exception. Only, if 
the crime be great, so must be the repentance.? 

Other early heretics are mentioned, as agreeing with the 
Novatians in their severity against the lapsed. The Apostolici are 
reckoned by Epiphanius as an offset from the Encratites or Cathari. 
Their opinions concerning marriage and all worldly indulgences 
were highly ascetic, and they refused to receive those who once 
fell.2 The Meletians were an Egyptian sect. They arose about 
the time of Diocletian’s persecution. Meletius, their founder, was 
Bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid. He was deposed by Peter, 
Bishop of Alexandria, and set up a schismatical communion under 
Alexander, the successor of Peter. They ultimately joined the 
Arians, as being the great enemies of Alexander. Epiphanius and 
Augustine ascribe to them the same severity to the lapsed which 
characterized the Novatians.4 The Luciferians, who followed 
Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, avoided communion with 
those who had lapsed to Arianism, and with those bishops who 
restored the lapsed. It should seem from Jerome that the Luci- 
ferians did not altogether exclude laymen who had lapsed from 
returning to communion, but would on no account receive repent- 
ant bishops and presbyters; arguing from our Lord’s words, “" Ye 
are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savour, where- 
with shall it be salted.”’ ® 


ἄλλοις μεταδίδωμι καὶ προεισφέρω τοῦ ἐλέου 
τὸν ἔλεον. Olda γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀσϑένειαν 


(Arr. XVI 


cipulos non esse habendos, qui dura pro 
mnitibus, superba pro humilibus sequenda 


νι ΡΝ ΟΝ 


περικείμενος, καὶ ὡς ἂν μετρῆσω, μετρηϑησό- 
. Σὺ δὲ τί λέγεις ; τί νομοϑετεῖς, ὦ 

vée φαρισαῖε, καὶ καϑαρὲ τὴν προσηγορίαν, 
οὐ προαίρεσιν, καὶ φυσῶν ἡμῖν Νανατοῦ 
τὰ μετὰ τῆς αὐτῆς ἀσϑενείας ; οὐ δέχῃ μετά- 
volav οὐ δίδως ὀδυρμοῖς χώραν ; οὐ δακρύεις 
δάκρυον; Μὴ σύ γε τοιούτου κριτοῦ τύχοις 
.. « « οὐδὲ τὸν Δαβὶδ δέχῃ μετανοοῦντα, ᾧ 
καὶ τὸ προφητικὸν χάρισμα ἡ μετάνοια συνε- 
τῆρησεν ; οὐδὲ Πέτρον τὸν μέγαν παϑόντά 
τι ἀνθρώπινον περὶ τὸ σωτήριον πάϑος ; 
.. +. οὐδὲ τὸν ἐν Κορίνϑῳ παρανομῆσαντα ; 
Παῦλος δὲ καὶ ἀγάπην ἐκύρωσεν, ἐπειδὴ τὴν 
διόρϑωσιν εἶδε, καὶ τὸ αἴτιον, ἵνα μὴ τῇ Te- 
peewee καταποϑῇ ὁ τοιοῦτος. --- Greg. 
az. . 89, Tom. 1. p. 684, Col. 1690. 

1 “Unde liquet eos inter Christi dis- 


opinantur ; et cum ipsi querant Domini 
misericordiam, aliis eam denegant; ut 
sunt doctores Novatianorum, qui mun- 
dos se appellant.” — De Panitentia, Lib. 
I. Gs 

2 “Sed Deus distinctionem non facit, 
qui misericordiam suam promisit omni- 
bus, et relaxandi licentiam omnibus sa- 
cerdotibus suis sine ulla exceptione con- 
cessit. Sed qui culpam exaggeravit, 
omnatenet etiam ponitentiam.” — Ibid, 
c 


‘3 Epiphan. Heres. 61. 
4 Epiphan. Heres. 68; August. Heres, 


δ Hieron. Adv, Tuciferianos, Tom. rv. 
pt. 11. p. 290, seg. 


Suc. 1] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 369 


At the period of the Reformation, it appears that some of the 
sects which then arose, most probably the Anabaptists in partic- 
ular, revived in some degree the Novatian errors. The XIth 
Article of the Confession of Augsburg, which is the source of the 
XVIth Article of the Church of England, condemns the Novatians 
by name, for refusing repentance to the lapsed, and afterwards con- 
demns the Anabaptists, though for another error, namely, the de- 
nial that persons once justified ever lose the grace of God.! Dr. 
Hey thinks that both the German and English reformers had 
chiefly in view the Anabaptists, in their condemnation of this ex- 
treme rigour against the lapsed.? 

In the fourteenth session of the Council of Trent, several de- 
crees and canons were drawn up upon penance, whereby it was 
defined that, for sins after baptism, the sacrament of penance was 
essential and sufficient; the form of the sacrament being contri- 
tion, confession, and satisfaction. It was determined that it was 
necessary to pardon that every mortal sin should be confessed, but 
not every venial sin.? 

The continental reformers were very express in asserting the 
efficacy of repentance for remission of sin after baptism. Thus, 
the Confession of Augsburg says, that ‘ Remission of sins may be 
granted to those who lapse after baptism, at any time when they 
turn to God. And the Church ought to grant absolution to such.” 4 
The Helvetic Confession declares, that ‘‘ there is access to God and 
pardon for all who believe, with the exception of those guilty of 
the sin against the Holy Ghost; therefore the old and new Nova- 
tians are to be condemned.” > 

The sentiments of the English Reformers appear plainly, both 
in the wording of this Article, and in several of the Homilies. For 
example, in the First Book of Homilies we read, ‘‘ They, which in 
act or deed do sin after baptism, when they turn again to God 
unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from their 
sins, in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that 
shall be imputed to their damnation.’’& “ We must trust only in 


1 Confess. Augs. Art. x1. ; Sylloge, p. 172. 

2 Lectures, 111. Ὁ. 486. 

3 Conc. Trid. Sess. xtv. Can. 1. Iv. 
&c.; Sarpi, p. 326. 

* “De penitentia decent, quod lapsis 
post baptismum contingere possit remissio 
peccatorum, quocunque tempore cum 
convertuntur. Et quod ecclesia talibus 
redeuntibus ad pcnitentiam impertire 
absolutionem debeat.” — Conf. August. 
Art. x1.; Syll. p. 172. 


47 


5 “Docemus interim semper et omni- 
bus peccatoribus aditum patere ad Deum, 
et hunc omnino omnibus fidelibus ¢on- 
donare peccata, excepto uno illo peccato 
in Spiritum Sanctum. Ideoque damna- 
mus et veteres et novos Novatianos 
atque Catharos.” — Confess. Helvet. Art. 
xiv. ; Syllog. p. 50. 

ὁ Homily of Salvation, pt. 1. 


ee SP a vee CP ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 
. gt ee 


879 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Art. XVI 


God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour, 
Christ Jesus the Son of God, once offered upon the Cross, tu 
obtain thereby God’s grace and remission, as well of our original 
sin in baptism as of all actual sin committed by us after our 
baptism, if we truly repent and turn to Him unfeignedly again.” 7 
And in the Second Book of Homilies we are told, “* Repentance is 
never too late, so that it be true and just.”? “ Although we do, 
after we be once come to God, and grafted in his Son Jesus Christ, 
fall into great sins... . yet if we rise again by repentance, and 
with a full purpose of amendment of life do flee unto the merey 
of God, taking sure hold thereon, through faith in his Son Jesus 
Christ, there is an assured and infallible hope of pardon and remis- 
sion of the same, and that we shall be received again into the 
favour of our heavenly Father.” ὃ 


II. Concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, the language 
of our Article is directed against an opinion, which was first 
broached by Origen. 

Origen and Theognostus taught, that the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost was, when those who in baptism had receiv ed the gift 
of the Spirit, returned again to sin ; and that such had never for- 
giveness. Origen, we are told, iseltined as a reason for this, that, 
whereas God the Father pervades and embraces all things, animate 
and inanimate, and the power of God the Son extends more imme- 
diately to the rational creatures of God, among whom are heathen 
men who have never yet believed ; the Spirit of God, on the con- 
trary, is in those only who have received the grace of baptism. 
. Hence, when Gentiles and unbelievers sin by blasphemy, they sin 
against the Son, who is in them, yet they can be forgiven. But 
when baptized Christians sin, their iniquity proceeds to the Spirit 
of God, who dwells in their hearts, and therefore they have never 
forgiveness. 

St. Athanasius wrote a treatise expressly on the subject, m 
which he first states, and then examines and confutes, this notion 
of Origen’s. He observes, that the occasion of our Lord’s speaking 
of the sin against the Holy Ghost was the blasphemy οἵ the 
Pharisees, who disbelieved the miracles of Christ, and ascribed them 
te Beelzebub. They, he remarks, had never been baptized, and 
yet they had either committed, or were in imminent danger of 
committing, the sin against the Holy Ghost. 

Athanasius himself appears to maintain, that the blasphemy 

1 Homily of Salvation, pt. 11. 3 Homily of Repentance, pt. 1. 8. Ibid. 


a ΨΥ 


Sec. I.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 871 


against the Son of Man was the disbelieving and blaspheming 
against our blessed Lord, when as yet only His human nature 
was manifested; but that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was 
continuing to deride and speak evil of Him, when He had given 
plain and irrefragable proofs of His Godhead and Divine nature.? 
The author, under his name, of the Questions to Antiochus, says, 
that they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, that is, the Divine nature of 
the Soa who said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub. To them, 
he says, there is no remission in this world, nor in the next. But, 
he adds, we must understand this, not that he who blasphemes 
and repents, but that he who blasphemes and does not repent, 
shall never be forgiven ; for no sin is unpardonable in the presence 
of God to those who holily and worthily repent; and then he 
adds, that there are three baptisms which purge away sin: the 
baptism of water, the baptism of blood, 7. 6. martyrdom, and the 
baptism of tears, 7. 6. repentance ; and that many, who had defiled 
by backsliding their holy baptism, have yet been cleansed and 
accepted by the baptism of tears.? 

Many, both ancient and modern, have followed in the steps of 
Athanasius, and given a like interpretation of the blasphemy against 
the Spirit. St. Chrysostom appears to take the same view ; namely, 
that blasphemy was irremissible, which was uttered after the dis- 
covery and experimental proof of the Spirit’s working. But then 
he appears to deny remission of such sin, not only to the impeni- 
tent, but even to those who repent.? 

St. Augustine has some very excellent observations on the sub- 
ject. He shows that neither Jews nor Gentiles were kept from 
pardon, because they had blasphemed Christ and the Holy Spirit 
in their unconverted state; nor yet that persons who had been 
baptized in infancy, and had grown up in ignorance, were refused 
forgiveness, because in their state of ignorance they resisted the 
Spirit and spoke against Him. He shows too, that even baptized 
persons lapsing, or becoming heretics, were yet admitted to the 
peace of the Church on their conversion and repentance; and 
enumerates among such heretics, Sabellians, Arians, Manichzeans, 
Cataphrygians, Donatists. And then concludes, that: the sin 
against the Spirit of God, which hath never forgiveness, is a final 
and obdurate continuance in wickedness, despite of all the calls 


1 Athanas. Jn Illud Evangelii, Quicunque 8. οὐκ ἀφεϑήσεται οὐδὲ μετανοοῦσι. --- 
dixerit. Chrysost. Homil. xi1. in Matt. ap. Suic. 
2 Athan. Queestiones ad Antiochum, Tom. 1. p. 700. ' 

Quest. LXXI. LXXII. 


ΨΥ eee DS ae 


ee ye ee ee ee ee 


372 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 


of God to repentance, joined with a desperation of the mercy 
of God.) 

That the Church at large rejected the theory of Origen, though 
the Novatians appear to have adopted it, is plain from their admit- 
ting offenders after baptism, even the most heinous, to penance and 
absolution. They did not indeed restore them readily and lightly, 
as we do at present, but after a long term of penitence and exclu- 
sion from church-privileges ; yet still, after sufficient satisfaction had 
been given to the Church, all offenders were ecclesiastically par- 
doned, and the sinner restored to peace and communion. For exam- 
ple, for fornication, the offender was expelled three years from the 
public service of the Church, three years more he was in the station 
of hearers, three years more in the station of the prostrate, and 
then was received to full communion. The term was double for 
adultery, and three times as long for murder. There was, however, 
some discretion allowed to the bishop, who might contract the term 
of discipline upon just ground of reason ; and especially if there 
was imminent danger of death, the clemency of the fathers deter- 
mined that the sinner should not be permitted to enter on his long 
last journey without provision for it, and without participation in 
the holy sacraments.?- These rules were not the same in all dio- 
ceses and all parts of the Church. Thus the council of Ancyra en- 
joins seven years’ penance for adultery ;* for such as had sacrificed, 
three years of prostration, and two years more as communicants 
without oblation ;4 and for those who had sacrificed two or three 
times, it enjoins a penance of six years.® But the diversity in the 
measure of penance only proves identity of principle. 


(Arr. XVI 


III. The question of the possibility of falling from grace may be 


1 Augustin. Epist. ad Romanos Ex- 
positio inchoata, 14-28. Tom. 111. , 
τὰν p. 988-940. See especially, c. 22, p. 
989: ‘Si ergo nec Paganis, nec Hebrzis, 
nec hereticis, nec schismaticis nondum 
baptizatis ad baptismum Christi aditus 
clauditur, ubi condemnata vita priore in 
melius commutentur; quamvis Chris- 
tianitati et Ecclesiz Dei adversantes an- 
tequam Christianis sacramentis ablueren- 
tur, etiam Spiritui Sancto quanta potu- 
erunt infestatione restiterint; si etiam 
hominibus, qui usque ad sacramentorum 
perceptionem veritatis scientiam percep- 
erint, et post hac lapsi Spiritui Sancto 
restiterunt, ad sanitatem redeuntibus et 

m Dei peenitendo querentibus, aux- 
ilium misericordi# non negatur ; si deni- 
que de illis ipsis, quibus blasphemiam in 


Spiritum Sanctum ab eis prolatam Dom- 
inus objecit, si qui resipiscentes ad Dei 
gratiam confugerunt, sine ulla dubita- 
tione sanati sunt: quid aliud restat nisi, 
ut peccatum in Spiritam Sanctum, quod 
neque in hoe seculo neque in futuro 
dimitti Dominus dicit, nullum intelliga- 
tur nisi perseverantia in nequitia et in 
malignitate, cum desperatione indulgen- 
tie Dei?” 

2 See Marshall’s Penitential Discipline, 
especially ch, τι. pt. τι. § 1, and Appen- 
dix, Num.1.; Gregory Nyssen’s Canoni- 
cal Epistle to Letoius. 

8 Concil. Ancyrani, Can. xx.; Beve- 
ridge, Pandect. ‘Tom. 1. p. 397. 

* Can. v1.; Beveridge, 1. p. 880, 

δ᾽ Can. vitr.; Beveridge, 1. 882. 


ὌΝ ee on ee ee eT ee ee ee ey ....." «.ε 


OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 373 


considered as intimately connected with the doctrine of God’s pre- 
destination, and therefore might properly come under the XVIIth 
Article. Yet, as it is certainly in some degree treated of in this 
Article, and may be separated from the question of predestination, 
we may not refuse to consider it here. 

The earliest fathers, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenzeus, 
and others, speak of God’s election and of predestination to grace 
and life. But, as we shall see in the next Article, it is not immedi- 
ately certain in what sense they use this language of holy Scripture. 
The controversies which afterwards arose concerning the Pelagian 
heresy, and the predestinarian doctrines of St. Augustine, induced 
persons to use more accurate terms: and Augustine himself argues 
that the fathers did not teach his doctrines, because no heresy had 
arisen which made it necessary to expound them.’ It seems, how- 
ever, tolerably certain that the fathers of the second century spoke 
of the possibility of falling away from grace, and held that those who 
had received the gift of the Holy Spirit might afterwards reject it 
and be lost. Justin Martyr says, that ‘* God will accept the peni- 
tent, as if he had never sinned, and will treat him who turns from 
godliness to impiety, as a sinner and unjust. Wherefore our Lord 
Jesus Christ says, “‘ In whatsoever I find you, I will judge you.” 2 
Irenzeus says, that whereas God gives grace, those who profit by it 
will receive glory, but those who reject it will be punished.2 He 
compares children of God, who disobey Him, to sons of men who 
are disinherited by their fathers; and says that if we disobey God, 
we shall be cast off by Him. Clement of Alexandria speaks of 
his Gnostic or perfect Christian, as praying for the permanence 
and continuance of that good which he already possesses.? Tertul- 
lian indeed, in his later treatises, especially after he had become a 
Montanist, seems to say that a person who fell away from grace 


880. 1.1 


1 De Predestinatione, ὃ 27, Tom. x. p. 
808 ; De Dono Perseverantie, ὃ 58, Tom. 
x. p. 851. 

2 Dialog. p. 267. 

8 “Dedit ergo Deus bonum, quemad- 
modum et Apostolus testificatur in eadem 
epistola, et qui operantur quidem illud, 
gloriam et honorem percipient, quoniam 
operati sunt bonum, cum possint non 
operari illud; hi autem qui illud non 
operantur, judicium justum recipient 
Dei, quoniam non sunt operati bonum, 
cum possint operari illud.” — Adv. Her. 
tv. 71. 

* “ Quemadmodum enim in hominibus 
indicto audientes patribus filii abdicati, 
natura quidem filii eorum sunt, lege vero 


alienati sunt, non enim heredes fiunt na- 
turalium parentum: eodem modo apud 


Deum, qui non obediunt Ei, abdicati ab ~ 


Eo, desierunt filii Ejus esse .. . Verum 
quando credunt et subjecti esse Deo per- 
severant et doctrinam Ejus custodiunt, 
filii sunt Dei; cum autem abscesserint, 
et transgressi fuerint, Diabolo adscribun- 
tur principi, ei qui primo sibi, tunc et 
reliquis causa abscessionis factus est.” — 
Ibid. rv. 80. See also Beaven’s /reneus, 
. 166. 

mM Ὄ γνωστικὸς δὲ ὧν κέκτηται Tapa- 
μονὴν, ἐπιτηδειότητα δὲ εἰς ἅ μέλλει ἀποβαΐ- 
νειν, καὶ ἀϊδιότητα ὧν λήψεται, αἰτήσεται. --- 
Strom. Lib. ναι. 7, p. 857. 


914 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVi 


had never been a Christian. In his tract De Prescriptione even, 
which was probably written before his Montanism, he speaks of no 
one as a Christian, but such as endured to the end. But in his 
tract De Pudicitia, which was written when he had become a Mon- 
tanist, in commenting on those words of St. John, “* He who is born 
of God sinneth not,” he argues that venial sins, such as causeless 
anger, rash swearing, &c., all Christians are liable to; but that 
deadly sin, such as murder, idolatry, blasphemy, impiety, no good 
Christian, no child of God, will commit.?_ Bishop Kaye even thinks 
that the language of Tertullian in his later writings is directly op- 
posed to the doctrine of our XVIth Article. But he observes that 
as there was no controversy on the subject of perseverance in his 
days, we must not construe his expressions too strictly. The time 
when this question really came to be discussed was after the rise 
of Pelagianism, and when St. Augustine had stated his predesti- 
narian opinions. Perseverance was a natural part of his doctrine 
of predestination ; for, whereas he taught that some men were 
predestinated to eternal salvation, whilst others were permitted to 
fall by their own sins into condemnation, it followed of necessity 
that he should believe some to be predestinated to final persever- 
ance, and others not. In his work De Correptione et Gratia, he 
calls. those elect who were predestinated to eternal life ;* and ob- 
serves that those who did not persevere were not properly to be 
called elect, for they were not separated from the mass οἵ perdition 
by the foreknowledge and predestination of God; and though, 
when they believed and were baptized and lived according to God, 
they might be called elect, yet it was by those who knew not the 
future, not by God, who saw that they would not persevere.® 

The clergy of Marseilles and other parts of Gaul, being offended 
at the predestinarianism expressed in this and other treatises of Au- 
gustine, Prosper and Hilary wrote to him a statement of their ob- 
jections. These letters of Hilary and Prosper called forth a reply 
from St. Augustine, in two books; the former on the Predestina- 
tion of the Saints, the other on the Gift of Perseverance. In the 
latter, he asserts perseverance to be the gift of God, not given 
equally to all, but only to the predestinated. Whether a person 
has received this gift must in this life ever be uncertain ; for, how- 
ever long he may have persevered in holiness, yet if he does not 
persevere to the end, he cannot have received the grace of perse- 


1 “Nemo autem Christianus, nisi σὰ ὃ Bp. Kaye’s imrery P 840. 
ad finem usque perseveraverit.” — De Pra- ; De ila $10, et Grat. ὃ 1 
script. Heretic. c. 8. 

2 De Pudicitia, c. 19. 











Sec. L] 


OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 


375 


verance.! He says, that of two infants equally born in sin, by 
God’s will one is taken, one left; that, of two grown persons, one 
follows God’s call, another refuses to follow it; and all this is 
from the inscrutable judgments of God. And so, of two pious 
persons, why to one is granted final perseverance, to another it is. 
not granted, is to be resolved into the still more inscrutable judg- 
ments of God.? 

It appears plainly that St. Augustine held two distinct predesti- 
nations: one predestination to regeneration and a state of grace, 
the other predestination to perseverance and to final reward. We 
find him continually speaking of persons predestinated to be brought 
into the Church, and so by God’s grace brought to baptism, and 
therein regenerate, but not necessarily on that account persevering 
to the end. Nay, he speaks of persons continuing in a state of 
grace for many years, but yet finally falling away. Such were 
predestinated to regeneration, and to receive grace and sanctifica- 
tion, but for some unknown though doubtless just cause, they were 
not predestinated to final perseverance. God is pleased to mix 
- those who will not persevere with those who will, for good and 
wise reasons, on purpose that he who thinketh he standeth should 
take heed lest he fall* In this life it was utterly impossible for 
any one to know whether he would persevere or ποῖ. He might 
live ten years and persevere for five, and yet for the last five fall 
away.° We may see examples of God’s hidden counsels in the 
case of some infants who die unregenerate, others who die regen- 
erate ; the former lost, the latter saved. And of those who are re- 
generate and grow up, some persevering to the end, others permit- 
ted to live on till they lapsed and fell away, and so are lost, who if 
they had died just before they lapsed, would have been saved; and 
again others, who had lapsed, preserved in life till they repented 
again, who, if they had been taken away before repentance, would 
have been damned.‘ 


1 De Dono Perseverantie, Opp. Tom. 
x. p. 822. See especially §§ 1, 6, 7, 10, 
15, 19. 

2 “Ex duobus autem pii#, cur huic 
donetur perseverantia usque ad finem, 
illi non donetur, inscrutabiliora sunt ju- 
dicia Dei . . . Nonne postremo utrique 
vocati fuerant, et vocantem secuti, utri- 
que ex impiis justificati, et per lavacrum 
regenerationis utrique renovati? Sed si 
hee audiret ille, qui sciebat procul dubio 
quod dicebat, respondere posset et dicere: 
Vera sunt hec, secundum hee omnia 
ex nobis erant; verumtamen secundum 


aliam quandam discretionem non erant 
ex nobis, nam si fuissent ex nobis, man- 
sissent utique nobiscum.”’ — Ibid. ὃ 21. 

8 See especially De Corrept. et. Grat. 
20, 22; De Dono Perseverantie, 1, 21, 82, 
88, &e. 

* De Don. Persev. 19. 

5 “ Utrum quisque hoc munus accep- 
erit, quam diu hane vitam ducit, incer- 
tum est. Si enim prius quam moriatur 
cadat, non perseverasse utique dicitur, et 
verissime dicitur.”’ — Ibid. § 1. 

6 Tbid. 

7 Ibid. § 32. 


876 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVL 


It is of considerable importance to observe the nature of St. 
Augustine’s doctrine of perseverance, as it materially differs from 
the doctrine most generally held by later predestinarians. St. 
Augustine did not hold that persons who had once received the 
gift of God’s Spirit could never lose it, or at least, could never be 
finally lost. On the contrary, he plainly taught that persons might 
receive the gift of regeneration, and might persevere in holiness 
for a time, and yet, if they had not the gift of perseverance, might 
fall away at the last. In short, he held that predestination to 
grace did not necessarily imply predestination to glory. A person 
might receive the grace of God and act upon it, and yet not per- 
severe to the end; and hence it was that he held that, even if a 
person had all the signs and tokens of a child of God, it was quite 
impossible in this life to say whether he was predestinated to 
persevere to the end.! 

The question of final perseverance, and of the falling from grace, 
thenceforth became a natural part of discussions concerning pre- 
destination. 

At the time of the Reformation all these subjects were hotly 
discussed. The Council of Trent found nothing to condemn in 
the writings of Luther, or of the Lutheran divines, on the subject 
of predestination, or of final perseverance ;? but from the writings 
of the Zuinglians several articles were drawn out which were con- 
sidered deserving of condemnation. Among these there were, (5) 
That the justified cannot fall from grace. (6) That those who are 
called, and are not in the number of the predestinated, do never 
receive grace. (8) That the justified is bound to believe for 
certain that in case he fall from grace he shall receive it again.® 

The divines of Trent, though not entirely at one concerning 
some questions of predestination, agreed to censure these concern- 
ing final perseverance, with admirable concord. They said that it 
had always been an opinion in the Church, that many receive 
grace and keep it for a time, who afterwards lose it, and are 
damned at the last. They alleged the examples of Saul, Solomon, 
and Judas, of whom our Lord said, “ΟΥ̓ those whom thou hast 
given me have I lost none save the son of perdition.” To these 
they added Nicholas, one of the deacons, and for a conclusion of 
all, the fall of Luther.! 

The language of Luther, on all the subjects connected with 
predestination, varies a good deal. Earlier in his life he was a 


1 See ante, note 5, p. 875, and De Dono Perseveranticr, 
2 Sarpi, p. 197. Ibid. Tid Ῥ 200. 


ap eee ee ee ae es ee ee ee ΨΎ 








Sxc. 1] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 3877 


high predestinarian ; but later he seems to have materially changed 
his views. In his commentary on the 17th chapter of St. John, 
he speaks of all disputes on predestination as having sprung from 
their author the devil In his commentary on the Galatians 
(ch. v. 4), he speaks plainly of falling from grace, and says that 
‘the who falls away from grace, loses expiation, remission of sins, 

_ righteousness, liberty, life, &c., which Christ by His death and 
resurrection deserved for us; and, in their room, acquires wrath 
and God’s judgment, sin, death, slavery to the devil, and eternal 
damnation.” 2 

The XIth Article of the Confession of Augsburg, which is 
clearly the source of our own XVIth Article, condemns the Ana- 
baptists, who say that persons once justified cannot again lose the 
Holy Spirit. From which we may conclude, first, that such was 
the teaching of the Anabaptists; and secondly, that the Lutherans 
viewed it altogether as an Anabaptist error. 

The Calvinist divines, on the contrary, have generally believed 
chat grace once given was indefectible ; and this is in fact their 
doctrine of perseverance. Calvin himself held, that our Lord and 
St. Paul taught us to confide that we should always be safe, if we 
were once made Christ’s; and that those who fall away may have 
had the outward signs, but had not the inward truth of election.4 

The English reformers, as we have already seen, adopted in this 
Article the language, not of the Zuinglians and Calvinists, but of 
the Confession of Augsburg and the Lutherans. This is apparent 
from the wording of the Article itself, which evidently follows the 
wording of the Confession of Augsburg; and also from the Homi- 
lies, and other documents, both before and after the drawing up 
of the Articles. ‘* The Necessary Doctrine ”’ has been appropriately 
cited, which says, ‘‘ It is no doubt, but although we be once justified, 
yet we may fall therefrom . . . ®And although we be illuminated, 
and have tasted the heavenly gift, and be made partakers of the 
Holy Ghost, yet we may fall and displease God.” ® The whole of 
the Homily “ Of Falling from God” holds language of the same 
character. It should be read throughout, being a practical dis- 
course, from which extracts would fail to give a right impression. 
It is impossible to, doubt, that the doctrine contained in it is, that 


1 Opp. Tom. vy, p. 197. * “ Quid hinc nos discere voluit Chris- 
2 Opp. Tom. v. p. 405. tus, nisi ut confidamus perpetuo nos fore 
8. “Damnant et Anabaptistas, qui ne- salvos, quia illius semel facti sumus?” 
gant semel justificatos iterum posse &c.— Jnstit. Lib. 111. ὁ. xxiv. 6, 7. 
amittere Spiritum Sanctum.” — Sylloge, ὃ Formularies of Faith in the Reign of 
p. 178. Henry the Eighth, p. 367. 
48 


ee ee ee ΡΨ ee ee ee ee ee ee eS ee ee, 


378 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVL 


we may once receive the grace of God, and yet finally fall away 
from Him. These were documents drawn up at the period of the 
Reformation, shortly before the putting forth of the Articles. The 
second book of Homilies, written early in the reign of Queen Eliz- 
abeth, and of nearly the same date with the final revision of the 
Articles, breathes the same spirit throughout. The language of the 
Hmily called “ The First Part of the Information of certain parts 
of Scripture ” may be ref»rred to as a specimen. After reciting 
<xamples from Scripture of the sins of good men, it continues, 
‘We ought then to learn by them this profitable lesson, that if so 
godly men as they were, which otherwise felt inwardly of God’s 
Holy Spirit influencing their hearts with the fear'and love of God, 
could not by their own strength keep themselves from commiting 
orrible sin, but did so grievously fall that without God’s merey 
“they had perished everlastingly ; how much more ought we then, 
miserable wretches, which have no feeling of God within us at all, 
continually to fear, not only that we may fall as they did, but also 
be overcome and drowned in sin, as they were not.” 

The Homily on the Resurrection has the following: ‘ Ye 
must consider that ye be therefore cleansed and renewed that ye 
should henceforth serve God in holiness and righteousness all the 
days of your life, that ye may reign with Him in everlasting life 
(Luke i.) If ye refuse so great grace whereto ye be called, what 
other thing do ye than heap to you damnation more and more, and 
so provoke God to cast His displeasure upon you, and to revenge 
this mockage of His holy sacraments in so great abusing of them? 
Apply yourselves, good friends, to live in Christ, that Christ may 
still live in you,” &e. 

Similar is the tone breathed by the Liturgy itself. In the 
Baptisinal Service we are taught to pray, that the baptized child 
“may ever remain in the numbéf of God’s faithful and elect chil- 
dren.” In the Catechism the child, after speaking of himself as in 
a state of salvation, adds, ** I pray unto God to give me His grace 
that I may continue in the same unto my life’s end.’’ And in the 
Burial Service we pray that God will * suffer us not at our last 
hour for any pains of death to fall from” Him. 

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth the sympathy which had 
sprung up with the Calvinistic reformers of the continent made 
the teaching of our English divines approximate more nearly to 
the teaching of the Calvinists. Near the end of that reign a dis- 
pute arose at Cambridge, originating in the teaching of Barret, a 
fellow of Caius College, who preached ad cleruwm against Calvin’s 


—_—  —— ον 


379 


doctrines about predestination and falling from grace. Barret was 
complained of to Archbishop Whitgift, who at first took his part ; 
but at last, at the earnest request of the heads of Colleges, sent for 
him to Lambeth, where he was directed not to teach like doctrines 
again. The dispute so originating was continued between Dr. 
Whitaker, the Regius Professor, and Dr. Baro, the Margaret 
Professor, of Divinity. Whitaker, who took the high Calvinistic 
side, was sent by his party to Lambeth, where he proposed to the 
Archbishop to send down to Cambridge a series of Articles, nine 
in number, stamped with the authority of the archbishops and 
bishops, in order to check the progress of what he called Pelagian- 
ism. Archbishop Whitgift was thus induced to call a meeting 
of bishops and other clergy. The theses of Whitaker were sub- 
mitted to them, and with some few alterations, which however 
were of considerable importance, they were passed by the meeting 
and sent down to Cambridge. The Queen censured Whitgift for 
the whole proceeding; and he promised to write to Cambridge, 
that the Articles might be suppressed. These were the famous 
Lambeth Articles. The fifth and sixth concerned falling from 
grace and certainty of salvation. The fifth as proposed by Whit- 
aker ran thus, ‘* True, living, and justifying faith, and the influence 
of the Spirit of God, is not extinguished, nor fails, nor goes off, in 
those who have once been partakers of it, either totally or finally.” 
The divines at Lambeth erased the words “‘in those who have 
once been partakers of it,” and substituted for them “in the 
elect;”’ thus making the doctrine more nearly correspond with 
Augustine’s, rather than, as it did in Whitaker’s draught of it, with 
Calvin’s. The sixth Article, in Whitaker’s draught, said that 
‘* A man who truly believes, that is, who has justifying faith, is 
sure, from the certainty of faith, concerning the remission of his 
sins and his eternal salvation through Christ.” For “ certainty of 
faith’ the Lambeth divines substituted ‘* full assurance of faith,” 
using that word as signifying, not a full and absolute certainty, 
such as is the certainty of matters of science or of the principles 
of the faith, but rather a lesser degree of certainty, such as is ob- 
tained in matters of judicial evidence and legal trials.} 


Sec. 1.} OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 


1 The Vth and VIth Articles as drawn 
by Whitaker were, — 

“V. Vera, viva, et justificans fides 
et Spiritus Dei Sanctificans non extin- 
guitur, non excidit, non evanescit in iis 
qui semel ejus participes fuerunt, aut totali- 
ter aut finaliter. 

“VI. Homo vere fidelis, id est fide 


justificante preeditus, certus est certitu- 
dine fidei, de remissione peccatoram suo- 
rum et salute sempiterna sua per Chris- 
tum.” 

In the Vth the Lambeth Divines for 
in tis qui semel ejus partiripes fuerunt, sub- 
stituted in electis. 

In the VIth for certitudine they substi- 


ee ee, ae ee ee re ke oe ey Oo ee ea eee ra + oe _—" 


880 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVL 


Soon after the accession of James I., a. ἢ. 1604, the conference 
was held at Hampton Court. Dr. Reynolds, the speaker for the 
Puritans, moved, among other things, that the Articles be explained 
and enlarged. For example, whereas in Art. XVI. the words are 
these: ‘ After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart 
from grace,” he wished that there should be added, “ yet neither 
totally nor finally ;” and also that “ the nine assertions orthodoxal 
concluded at Lambeth might be inserted into that book of Articles.” 
On this point he was answered by the Bishop of London; no 
alteration of the kind was conceded, the Articles remaining as they 
were before, and the Lambeth Articles never having received any 
sanction of the Church or the Crown. 





Sxecrion II.— SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


ae first thing we have to show from holy Scripture is, that 
‘every deadly sin committed after baptism is not unpardona- 
ble,” and that ‘ the place of forgiveness is not to be denied to such 
as truly repent.” 

To prove this proposition, it will be desirable (1) to show that 
sins after baptism are not generally unpardonable. (2) To consider 
those texts of Scripture, which are thought to prove the great 
heinousness and unpardonable nature of some sins, especially if 
committed after baptism. 


I. First, then, sins after baptism are not generally incapable of 
being pardoned. 

Baptism is the first step in the Christian life, by which we are 
admitted into the covenant, and to a share of the pardoning love of 
God in Christ. Under the Jewish dispensation there was no such 
thing as baptism ordained by God ; but circumcision admitted into 
God’s covenant with Abraham, and to a participation in the bless- 
ings of the congregation or Church of the Jews. Now it is a truth 
universally admitted, that the blessings we receive under the Gospel 
are yreater than those which the Jews received under the Law. 
Especially, under the Gospel and in the Church of Christ, there is 


tuted plerophoria. — See Strype’s Whit- | Cardwell, Hist. of Conferences, p. 
gift, L. rv. ὁ. 17. hal 178. 4 


Seo. IL] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 381 


a fuller fountain of mercy and grace opened to all. “There is a 
fountain open for sin and for uncleanness,” such as .ne Jews had 
only in figure. ‘* The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth 
came by Jesus Christ ” (Joh.i. 17). Yet under the Law it is quite 
certain that there was a continual sacrifice offered for the sins both 
of priests and people, and a continual promise of pardon to the re- 
turning and penitent sinner. The prophet Ezekiel (ch. xxxiii. 
12-20) by God’s commandment clearly expounds to the Israelites, 
that, of those within the covenant, if the righteous man turn from 
his righteousness, he shall surely die ; but if the wicked “ turn from 
his sin, and do that which is lawful and right,” “none of his sins 
that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him ; he hath done 
that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.” So the 
prophet David, after deliberate murder and adultery, was yet at once 
restored on his repentance. If then under the Law those who 
sinned were admitted to pardon, but under the Gospel, that is to 
say after baptism, those who sin are not admitted to pardon, then 
is the Gospel a state of less, instead of greater, grace than the 
Law ; then those who have been made partakers of Christ, have 
been admitted to a sterner law and a less merciful covenant than 
those who were baptized into Moses, and admitted to that carnal 
commandment, which made nothing perfect. 

It is true, indeed, that the greater God’s mercies are, the 
heavier will be the punishment of those who slight them. “If 
they who despised Moses’ law died without mercy, of how much 
sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden 
under foot the Son of God?” (Heb. x. 28, 29). Yet, that the 
slighting of God’s mercies should be of so great guilt, results from 
the fact that those mercies are so great: and, if the grant of re- 
pentance be withheld from the Christian, which was conceded to 
the Jew, then we may say, that God’s mercies under the Law 
were greater than are His mercies under the Gospel. 

Thus then we may naturally infer that pardon of sin would be 
given to Christians, and that sin committed after baptism would 
not in general exclude the sinner from all hope of repentance. 
Such reasoning is fully confirmed by the language of the new Tes- 
tament. The Lord’s Prayer was ordained for the use of those who 
might call Almighty God their Father. We therefore may clearly 
see that it was to be used only by children of God. Now in bap- 
tism we are made children of God. In the Lord’s Prayer, then, 
God’s baptized children are taught to pray that their sins should 
be forgiven them. And our blessed Lord comforts us with the 


382 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM [Anr. ΧΥ͂Ι. 


assurance, that, “if we forgive men their trespasses, our heavenly 
Father will also forgive our trespasses” (Matt. vi. 14). So in the 
parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke xv.), it is a som that leaves his 
father, and who on his repentance is welcomed home and pardoned. 
The parable plainly sets before us, that, if we, as sons of God, leave 
our Father’s home and revel in all iniquity, still on true and earnest 
repentance we shall be received, pardoned, comforted. 

To the chief ministers of His Church our Lord gave the power 
of binding and loosing; binding by censure upon sin, but loosing 
again by absolution and reconciliation (Matt. xviii. 18); and to 
confirm this power to them the more strongly He declared : “* Whose 
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose so- 
ever sins ye retain, they are retained”’ (John xx. 23), If the 
reconciliation of offenders to the Church be so sanctioned in Heay- 
en, can there be a doubt that there is also pardon in Heaven for 
such as, having so offended, have repented and been reconciled ? 

We have instances in the new Testament of the Apostles giving 
hope of pardon, and restoring communion to those who had sinned 
most heavily after baptism. “Thus, Simon Magus, just after he was 
baptized, showed himself to be “tin the gall of bitterness and the 
bond of iniquity ;”’ yet St. Peter urged him to repent of his wicked- 
ness, and to pray God, if perhaps the thought of his heart might 
be forgiven him! (Acts viii, 22, 23). Even of the man who after 
baptism had committed incest, and whom St. Paul (1 Cor. ν. 1-5) 
bids the Corinthians to excommunicate, he yet gives hope that 
‘his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (ver. 5). 
And when the incestuous man had given signs of true sorrow for 
his sin, but a very short time after his excommunication, the Apostle 
ordered him to be restored to communion, declares that he ministe- 
rially pardoned his offences in the name and as the minister of 
Christ (2 Cor. ii. 10) ; recommends the Corinthians to comfort him, 
that he should not be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow (ver. 7); 
and assures them, with reference to the same subject, that ‘ godly 
sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of” 
(2 Cor. vii. 10). Nay! he expressly says that the object of ex- 
commun’cating the guilty man was that his “ spirit might be saved ” 
(1 Cor. v. 5). 

Again. St. Paul exhorts the Galatian Church. ‘ Brethren, if a 
man be overtaken in a fault (ἐν τινὶ παραπτώματι) you, which are 
spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering 
thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” The words made use of are 


1 καὶ defOnre Θεοῦ, εἰ dpa ἀφεϑήσεταί σοι ἡ ἐπίνοια τῆς καρδίας cov. 





παν = ΝΥ ΟΥ̓ ΨΨ' ὼ “ἀντ Δ = ν SS eae ee ee ΟὟ ΠΥ ΨΥ ΎΘΡ lO 


Sec. II] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 883 


perfectly general, and we may infer from them, as a general rule, 
that a man entrapped or overtaken by any kind of transgression or 
backsliding is, on his repentance, to be restored to communion. 
In the latter part of the second Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 20, 
21), the Apostle speaks of his apprehension that he shall be grieved 
at the state of the Corinthian Church, for he feared that many of 
the Corinthian Christians had committed all those sins which most 
grievously defile the temple of God (ἀκαθάρσια, πόρνεια, ἀσέλγειαν, 
even every kind of uncieanness ; but then the way in which he adds 
καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων, “and have not repented,” seems clearly to in- 
dicate that the poignancy of his grief was derived from their im- 
penitence ; and that for those who repented there was still room 
for pardon and hope. 

St. Peter tells us, that God “ is long-suffering to usward ”’ (mean- 
ing, as we may suppose, to Christians), “ not willing that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance ” (2 Pet. iii. 9). St. 
John says that, as all men are sinners, so “if we confess our sins, 
He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.””, And when he writes 
to Christians, calling them his “ little children,” and exhorting them 
that they sin not, he yet adds, “If any man sin, we have an advo- 
cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the 
propitiation for our sins.’ Here we have an evident address to 
those who were members of Christ’s Church by baptism, an earnest 
exhortation to them not to sin, yet an encouragement to those who 
fall into sin, not to despair, as there is yet an Advocate, yet pro- 
pitiation, through Jesus Christ (1 John i. 9; ii. 1, 2). St. James 
(James v. 18-15) enjoins, that if any member of the Church be 
sick, he should send for the clergy, the elders of the Church, to 
pray over him, and, among other blessings, promises that “ if he 
have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.” Lastly, in the 
Apocalypse, referring to men who had been seduced from their 
faith to all the abominations of the worst kind of heresy, our 
blessed Lord speaks of ‘* giving time to repent;’’ and threatens . 
heavy punishment, “unless they repent of their deeds” (Rev. ii. 
20-22). 

The general promises to repenting sinners do not, of course, 
belong to our present inquiry. Such promises may have been 
made to such as had not been baptized, and may be performed 
only in baptism. But those now adduced all evidently concern 
Christians, who had been brought to Christ by baptism, and who 
had afterwards fallen into sin. And they seem clearly to prove, 
that not even the deadliest sin committed. by a baptized person 


a ade 4 Weegee Ὑ ΝΥ ——s ee mn av Be i ee es Σ ij = ... 


884 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVI. 


makes it utterly impossible that, on hearty repentance and true 
faith, he should be forgiven. 

There are indeed some passages of Scripture, and some very 
serious considerations, which have led to the belief that deadly sin 
after baptism has never forgiveness ; and these we must take into 
account. 

The fact that St. Paul speaks of the whole Church and every 
individual Christian as temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. iii. 16 ; 
vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 22), joined with many similar con- 
siderations, shows that at our baptism we are set apart and conse- 
erated to be temples of God. And then St. Paul declares that 
“if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy ; for 
the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. iii. 17). 
In like manner, we know that in baptism we are made members of 
Christ (see Gal. iii. 27; Ephes. iv. 15, 16, &e.). And St. Paul, 
reminding the Corinthians of this, says: “* What, know ye not that 
your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the 
members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot ἢ 
God forbid” (1 Cor. vi. 15). Such sayings prove, with exceeding 
force, the great wickedness of sin, and especially of sins of unclean- 
ness, when committed by a baptized Christian ; who thereby “ sin- 
neth against his own body ”’ (1 Cor. vi. 18), and against the Holy 
Ghost, whose temple his body has been made. So our blessed 
Saviour, speaking of Christians as branches of the Vine, whose 
root and stem is Christ, says that, “If a man abide not in Me, he 
is cast forth as a branch, and is withered”? (John xv. 6). 

These passages, however, though they show the great guilt of 
sinning against grace, do not prove such sins to be unpardonable, 
though probably they suggested the opinion that sin after baptism 
was the sin against the Holy Ghost, which hath never forgiveness. 

There are strong and very fearful passages in the first Epistle of 
St. John, which have still more led to some of the opinions dis- 
claimed by the Article we are now considering. In 1 John iii. 6, 
8, 9, we read that, “« Whosoever abideth in Him, sinneth not. ... 
He that committeth sin is of the devil. . .. Whosoever is born of 
God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he 
cannot sin, because he is born of God.”’ This passage led Jovinian 
to teach that a baptized Christian could never sin; and has been 
one argument from which it has been inferred, that, if by any 
means this high estate of purity should be lost, it would be lost ir- 
revocably. Jerome, in his answer to Jovinian,! well explains the 

1 Adv. Jovinian. Lib. 11. cire, init. Tom. 1v. pt. 11. p. 198. 


ΝΡ ee ee eee ee eR eee ΤΥ eee ς ΠῸ 


Sec. 11] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 385 


general tenour of St. John’s reasoning. He remarks that St. John 
exhorts those whom he addresses as little children, to keep them- 
selves from idols (1 John v. 21) ; showing that they were liable 
to be tempted like others, and to fall; that he writes to them not 
to sin; and assures them still that, if they sin, they have an Advo- 
cate inthe Lord Jesus Christ (1 John ii. 1, 2); that their best way 
of knowing that they know Christ is to keep His commandments 
(ver. 4) ; that he, who says he’ abides in Him, ought to walk as 
He walked (ver. 6). ‘* Therefore,’’ he continues, *‘ St. John says, 
‘I write unto you, little children,’ since ‘every one who is born 
of God sinneth not,’ that ye sin not, and that ye may know that ye 
abide in the generation of God, so long as ye do not sin; yea, those 
who continue in God’s generation cannot sin. For what commun- 
ion hath Christ with Belial? If we have received Christ as a 
guest into our hearts, we put to flight the devil. But if we sin 
again, the devil enters through the door of sin, and then Christ de- 
parts.” This seems a correct account of St. John’s reasoning, and 
shows that what he means is, that the regenerate man, so long as 
he continues in the regenerate state, overcomes sin and casts it 
out; but if he falls from the regenerate state and sins, then he be- 
comes again the servant of the devil. But it neither proves, that 
the regenerate man cannot sin, nor that, if he does, his fall is irre- 
coverable. 

But St. John (1 John v. 16, 17) speaks of the distinction be- 
tween ‘* sin unto death,” and “sin not unto death ;”’ and encourages 
us to pray for the latter, but not for the former. Bp. Jeremy 
Taylor has some good remarks on this verse. ‘¢ Every Christian,” 
he says, “is in some degree in the state of grace, so long as he is 
invited to repentance, and so long as he is capable of the prayers 
of the Church. This we learn from those words of St. John, “ All 
unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death; ’ that is, 
some sorts of sin are so incident to the condition of men, and their 
state of imperfection, that the man who hath committed them is 
still within the methods of pardon, and hath not forfeited his title 
to the promises and covenant of repentance ; but ‘ there is a sin 
unto death ;’ that is, some men proceed beyond the measures and 
economy of the Gospel, and the usual methods and probabilities of 
repentance, by obstinacy, and preserving a sin, by a wilful, spiteful 
resisting, or despising the offers of grace and the means of pardon; 
for such a man St. John does not encourage us to pray; if he be 
such a person as St. John described, our prayers will do him no 


good ; but because no man can tell the last minute or period of 
49 


836 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVI. 


pardon, nor just when a man is gone beyond the limit ; and be- 
cause the limit itself can be enlarged, and God’s mercies stay for 
some longer than for others, therefore St. John left us under the 
indefinite restraint and caution; which was decretory enough to 
represent that sad state of ihitiga in which the refractory and im- 
penitent have immerged themselves, and yet so indefinite and cau- 
tious, that we may not be too forward in applying it to particulars, 
nor in prescribing measures to the Divine mercy, nor in passing 
final sentences upon our brother, before we have heard our Judge 
Himself speak. ‘Sinning a sin not unto death’ is an expression 
fully signifying that there are some sins which though they be 
committed and displeased God, and must be repented of, and need 
many and mighty prayers for their pardon, yet the man is in the 
state of grace and pardon, that is, he is within the covenant of 
mercy ; he may be admitted, if he will return to his duty: so that 
being in a state of grace is having a title to God’s loving-kindness, 
a not being rejected of God, but a being beloved of Him to certain 
purposes of mercy, and that hath these measures and degrees.” 

Again, “ Every act of sin takes away something from the con- 
trary grace, but if the root abides in the ground, the plant is still 
alive, and may bring forth fruit again. ‘ But he only is dead who 
hath thrown off God for ever, or entirely with his very heart.’ So 
St. Ambrose. To be ‘dead in trespasses and sins,’ which is the 
phrase of St. Paul (Eph. ii. 1), is the same with that expression 
of St. John, of ‘sinning a sin unto death,’ that is, habitual, refrac- 
tory, pertinacious, and incorrigible sinners, in whom there is 
scarcely any hope or sign of life. ‘These are they upon whom, as 
St. Paul’s expression is, (1 Thess. ii. 16,) ‘the wrath of God is 
come upon them to the uttermost, εἰς τὸ vé'.-4. unto death.’ So was 
their sin, it was a sin unto death; so is their punishment.” ! 

But by far the most terrible passages in Scripture, on the dan- 
ger of backsliding and the difficulty or impossibility of renewal, are 
to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. We learn indeed from 
Tertullian (De Pudicitia), that the difficulty of the 6th chapter 
of that Epistle was the main reason why the Roman Church was 
so long in admitting it into the Canon. 

In the 10th chapter we read that, ‘if we sin wilfully after we 
have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more 
sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and 
fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that de- 
spised Moses’ law, perished without mercy under two or three wit- 


1 Of Repentance, ch. 1v. § 2. 





ee ee Se eee eee ee ee. ΡΥ ΓΝ ee ee ΨΥ ΥΥ. ee) oe eae ee 


Src. II] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 887 


nesses ; of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be 
thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and 
hath counted the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, and 
hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace?” (Heb. x. 26-29). 
The peculiar strength of this passage is in the words, “" If we sin 
wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there 
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” The word “ sin”’ in the first 
clause, is here supposed by many to mean “ apostatize.” So in 
Hos. xiii. 2, we read Sur? spot mmy) “ Now they add moreover to 
sin ;” where the sin spoken of is a revolting from God, and apos- 
tatizing to Baal. And, as regards the “* remaining no more sacri- 
fice for sin,” the Apostle had been showing, throughout the early 
verses of the chapter, that the priests under the Law kept con- 
stantly offering sacrifices, year by year and day by day (vv. 1-11). 
But Christ offered but one sacrifice for sin, and by that one sacri- 
fice hath perfected all that are sanctified (vv. 12-14). So then, if 
we reject the sacrifice of Christ, and after a knowledge of its sav- 
ing efficacy, apostatize willingly from the faith, there are not now 
fresh sacrifices, ‘‘ offered year by year continually ;’’ and by reject- 
ing the one sacrifice of Christ, we cut ourselves off from the bene- 
fit of His death; and since we have chosen sin instead of God, 
there is no new sacrifice to bring us to God. 

Another of the hard sentences, which has led to a belief in the 
irremissibility of post-baptismal sin, is Heb. xii. 17. The Apostle, 
warning against the danger of falling from grace, bids us take heed, 


lest there be “ any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for 


one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that 
afterward, when he would have inherited a blessing, he was re- 
jected ; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it 
carefully with tears.” There can be no doubt, that Esau is here 
propounded to us as a type of those who, having been made sons 
of God by baptism, and so, having a birthright and promised inheri- 
tance, by thoughtlessness and sensuality, “for one morsel of meat,” 
throw themselves out of God’s favour, and, leaving God’s family, 
return to the condition of mere sons of Adam. St. Paul reminding 
us that, when Esau had sold his birthright, he found no place for 
repentance, even when he sought it with tears, puts us on our 
guard against the like folly, by fear of the like fate. Yet it does 
not follow of course, that every person who lives unworthily of his 
baptismal privileges, shall be denied access to repentance. We can 


1 ἑκουσίως yw “5 With a high hand, and Rosenmiiller thereon ; Kuinoel on 
presumptuously. See Numb. xv. 29, 30; Heb. x. 26. 


388 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVI. 


never, when we yield to sin, know that God will give us repent- 
ance ; and we may die in our sin. And even if we repent, our 
repentance, like Esau’s, may be too late ; after the door is shut, and 
when it will not do to knock. Weare told elsewhere of those who 
came and cried, “ Lord, Lord, open unto us,”’ and who received no 
answer but, “1 know you not” (Matt. xxv. 11,12). Such a late 
repentance is that of those who would repent in the grave, per- 
haps of some who seek only on the bed of death. But if we follow 
out the history of Esau, we may gain at least this comfort from it, 
that, even late as he had put off his seeking repentance, so late that 
he could never be fully restored, yet, though not to the same posi- 
tion as before, he was still restored to favour and to blessing (Gen. 
xxvil. 38, 39). So that we may hope from this history, as set 
forth to us for a type, that, though such as cast away their privi- 
leges as Christians find it hard to be reinstated in the position 
from which they fell, and may, perhaps, never in this world attain 
to like blessedness and assurance as if they had never fallen, still 
the door of repentance is not shut against them. Their place in 
their Father’s house may be lower ; but still it is not hopeless that 
there may, and shall, be a place for teas 

The strongest passage, and that on which the Novatians most 
rested their doctrines, remains yet to be considered. It is Heb. 
vi. 4, 5, 6: ‘ It is impossible for those, who were once enlightened, 
and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of 
the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the 
powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them 
again to repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of 
God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.” 

The Syriac Version, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others of the 
ancients, who are followed by Ernesti, Michaelis, and many learned 
men of our own times, understand by the word “enlightened” 
(ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας) here, and in Heb. x. 32, “" baptized.” Clement 
of Rome, Justin Martyr, and others of the very earliest Christians, 
used the word in this sense.! But whether we admit this to be 
the right interpretation or not, we must allow the passage to teach 
that a person, after baptism and Christian blessing and enlighten- 
ment, may so fall away that it may be impossible to renew him to 
repentance. The words made use of seem to say that persons 
once baptized, endued with God’s Holy Spirit, made partakers of 
the Christian Church,” if they despise all these blessings, rejecting, 


1 See Suicer, s τίζω, Ὁ 2 δυνάμεις μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, the v 
dug Hingham, i A. ΓΝ ἐν ΤῈ phrase used in the LXX. “(of Isai ix. 6) 


He ae, ee 


ee ve 


Seo. IL] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 389 


and, as it were, afresh crucifying the Son of God, cannot be again 
restored to repentance. The difficulty of the passage lies almost 
wholly in two words, παραπεσόντας, “ having fallen away,” and 
ἀνακαινίζειν, “to renew.” Most commentators consider the word 
ἐς fall away,” which occurs here only in the New Testament, to 
signify total apostasy from the faith! If indeed the other two 
participles (ἀνασταυροῦντας and rapaderypari¢ovras) be to be coupled 
with it, as in apposition to, and explanation of it, then we may well 
conclude that it can mean no less. It is the case of those ‘* who sin 
wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth,” of 
him from whom one devil had been cast out, but to whom it had 
returned with seven worse devils. Rejecting their faith and their 
baptism, they fall away from Christ, reproach and crucify Him 
afresh, as much reject Him for their Saviour as they who actually 
nailed Him to the Cross. Bishop Taylor describes them as persons, 
who, * without cause or excuse, without error or infirmity, choos- 
ingly, willingly, knowingly, called Christ an impostor, and would 
have crucified Him again if He were alive ; that is, they consented 
to His death by believing that He suffered justly. This is the 
case here described, and cannot be drawn to anything else but its 
parallel; that is, a malicious renouncing charity, or holy life, as 
these men did the faith, to both which they have made their solemn 
vows in baptism ; but this can no way be drawn to the condemna- 
ion and final excision of such persons who fall into any great sin, 
of which they are willing to repent.” 2 

And for the other word of difficulty, ἀνακαινίζειν, “ to renew,” 
some think we must understand to rebaptize. ‘The Church has no 
power to rebaptize those who fall away ; and so, as first they were 
washed in the waters of baptism from original sin, to wash them 
again from their guilt of apostasy.2 Others understand to admit 
by absolution to the fellowship of the Church, and so restore them to 
repentance and penance, when they have once thoroughly aposta- 
tized.4 Others understand, that, whereas they have rejected the 
of the Christian Church. See Hammond, 


in loc. Rosenmiiller and Kuinoel both 
understand these words of the Kingdom 


2 On Repentance, ch. 1x. sect. 4. 
8 Dr. Hammond, in Joc. observes that, 
as. ἐγκαινίζειν is to dedicate, consecrate, 


of Christ, the Reign of Messiah. Hence 
‘“‘the powers of the world to come ” would 
be the blessed effects of Christ’s king- 

dom and gospel. 
1 παραπίπτειν is the translation of the 
LXX. for ppyiyy Ezek. xxii. 4, and by» 
= viz 


Ezek. xiv. 18. Schleusner compares 2 
Chron. xxix. 19, where the LXX. trans- 
late βου, ἐν ἀποστασίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 


80, ἀνακαινίζειν is to reconsecrate. Per- 
sons utterly apostate could not be recon- 
secrate. There was no power to repeat 
their baptism, nor, if utterly apostate, 
could the Church readmit them by pen- 
ance to Church-communion. 

* Many understand ἀνακαινίζειν as ap- 
plied to the ministers of the Church. It 
is “impossible for the ministers of Christ 
to renew them again ;” that is, there is 


μων ee ee ee a a eS ee ne, 


390 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Arr. XVI. 


Gospel and all its means of grace, their case has become hopeless, 
because no other covenant can be provided for them: “ There 
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” No new method of salvation 
will be devised for them; and as they have utterly given up the 
one already provided, rejected Christ, and despised His Spirit, so it 
- is impossible that any other should renew them. ‘ Other founda- 
tion can no man lay, save that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ ; "ἢ 
«for there is no means of salvation but this one ; and this one they 
hate, and will not have; they will not return to the old, and ‘there 
is none left by which they can be renewed, and therefore their con- 
dition is desperate.” 1 

On the whole, there can be no doubt of the awful severity of 
the language of this passage, and of the warning it gives us against 
falling from grace ; but, when we compare it with other passages 
somewhat like it, and contrast with it those which assure us of 
God’s readiness to receive the penitent sinner, and to give repent- 
ance even to those who sin after grace given ; we can hardly fail to 
conclude that it concerns particularly extreme cases, and not those 
of ordinary occurrence ; and that, though it proves the heinousness 
of sinning against light and grace, and shows that we may so fall 
after grace as never to recover ourselves, yet it does not prove that 
there is no pardon for such baptized Christians as sin grievously, 
and then seek earnestly for repentance. 

The fact that our Lord left to His Church the power of the 
keys, allowing its chief pastors to excommunicate for sin and 
restore on repentance, and that the Apostles and first bishops ever 
exercised that power, shows that even great sins (for none other 
led to excommunication) do not exclude from pardon. Nay, 
* Baptism is εἰς μετά a, the admission of us to the covenant of 
faith and repentance ; or as Mark the anchorite called it, πρόφασίς 
ἐστι τῆς μετανοίας, the introduction of repentance, or that state of 
life that is full of labour and care, and amendment of our faults ; 
for that is the best life that any man can live; and therefore 
repentance hath its progress after baptism, as it hath its beginning 


before ; for first, * repentance is unto baptism,’ and then ‘ baptism. 


unto repentance.’ . . . . Besides, our admission to the holy Sacra- 
ment of the Lord’s Supper is a perpetual entertainment of our 
hopes, because then and there is really exhibited to us the Body 
that was broken and the Blood that was ‘shed for the remission 


no other sacrament by which we can re- which they were once placed by the sac- 
store offenders to the same position in rament of baptism. 
which they were before their and in Bishop Jeremy Taylor, as above. 


Ξ. 


Sec. II]: OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 391 


of sins.’ Still it is applied, and that application could not be 
necessary to be done anew, if there were not new necessities ; and 
still we are invited to do actions of repentance, ‘to examine our- 
selves, and so to eat.’ All which, as things are ordered, would be 
infinitely useless to mankind, if it did not mean pardon to Chris- 
tians falling into foul sins even after baptism.” ! 

We may therefore conclude that, severe as some passages of 
Scripture are against those who sin wilfully against light and 
grace, and strict as the discipline of the early Church was against ᾿ 
all such offenders, there is yet nothing to prove that heinous sin 
committed after baptism cannot be pardoned on repentance. The 
strongest and severest texts of Scripture seem to apply, not to per- 
sons who have sinned and seek repentance, but to apostates from 
the faith, who are stout in their apostasy, and hardened in sin. 


II. Our next consideration is the “Sin against the Holy 
Ghost.” 

The statements of Scripture already considered have, as we 
have seen, been supposed by some to show that the sin against the 
Holy Ghost must be falling grievously after baptism. For, as it has 
been supposed that these statements make deadly sin after baptism 
the unpardonable sin, and our Lord makes blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost to be unpardonable, and both our Lord and St. John 
(1 John v. 16) seem to speak as if there were but one unpardon- 
able sin, therefore deadly sin after baptism and the blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost must be identical. The foregoing argu- 
ments seem sufficiently to have shown that this hypothesis is 
untrue. 

If we examine the circumstances under which our Lord uttered 
His solemn warnings concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 
we may probably the better understand the nature of that sin. 
He had been casting out a devil, thereby giving signal proof of 
His Godhead. But the Pharisees, instead of believing and ac- 
knowledging His heavenly mission, ascribed His power to Satan 
and Beelzebub (Matt. xii. 24). Those who thus resisted such 
evidence were plainly obstinate and hardened unbelievers, such as, 
we may well believe, were given over to a reprobate mind, and 
such as no evidence of the truth could move to faith and penitence. 
Accordingly, many believe that by thus rejecting the faith, and as- 
cribing the works of our Lord’s Divinity to the power of evil spirits, 
they had committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. 

1 Jeremy Taylor, On Repentance, ch. 1x. sect. 2. 


ee ee κὰν Sa ee a ee ee ee ee a 
ΤΡ ΨῪ ᾿ ΜΡ Ἧ “ ae . hy ν 


892 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVI. 


That they were very near committing that sin there can be little 
doubt. They had stepped upon the confines, they had uttered dar- 
ing and desperate blasphemy. They had reviled the holy Son of 
God. They had called His works of love and goodness the works 
of the devil, thereby confounding light with darkness. But still 
our Lord consents to reason with them. He still puts forth para- 
bles, by which to convince them that they were in error (Matt. 
xii. 23-30). And He would scarce do this, if there were no hope 
that they might repent, no possibility that they might be forgiven. 
And then He warns them. Warning and reasoning are for those 
who may yet take warning and conviction, not for those to whom 
they would be useless. 

And of what nature is His warning? They had just blasphemed 
Him, disbelieved His mission, disregarded His miracles. Yet 
He tells them in gracious goodness, that all manner of sin and 
blasphemy which men commit shall be forgiven them, that even 
blasphemy against Himself, the Son of Man, shall be forgiven; 
but then He adds, that, if they went farther still, and committed 
the same sin moreover against the Spirit of God, it should never 
be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (vv. 
31, 32). 

Now Christ was then present with them as the Son of Man. 
The glory of His Godhead was veiled under the likeness of sinful 
flesh. Those were ‘the days of the Son of Man;” and * the 
Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” 
There is no doubt, that it must have been deadly wickedness which 
led men to doubt the truth of His doctrine when taught with such 
power from His sacred lips, and proved so mightily by the works 
which He wrought. But the full power of the Gospel had not 
been put forth; especially the Spirit had not been poured on the 
Church, —a blessing so great, that it made it expedient for His 
disciples that even Jesus should go away from them in order that 
He might give it to them (John xvi. 7). But when the Spirit was 
poured forth, then all the means of grace were used; Jesus work- 
ing without, and the Spirit pleading within. And in those whe 
received the word and were baptized, the Spirit took up His dwell- 
ing, and moved and ruled in their hearts. This then was a state 
of greater grace, and a more convincing state of evidence to the 
world and to the Church, than even the bodily presence of the 
Saviour as the Son of Man. Accordingly, resistance to the means 
of grace, after the gift of the Spirit, was worse than resistance 
during the bodily presence of Christ. Resisting the former, re- 


eee 


See. IL] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 898 


fusing to be converted by it, rejecting its evidence, and obstinate 
impenitence under its influence, was blasphemy against the Son of 
Man. Still even this could be forgiven ; for farther and yet greater 
means of grace were to be tried, even on those who had rejected 
Christ. ‘* The Gospel was to be preached unto them, with the Holy 
Ghost sent down from heaven” (1 Pet. i. 12). But this mission 
of the Comforter was the last and highest means ever to be tried, 
the last and greatest dispensation of the grace of God. Those, 
therefore, who after this still remained obstinate, still rejected Christ 
in His kingdom, as they had rejected Him in His humility, still re- 
fused to be converted, ascribed the gifts of His Apostles and the 
graces of His Church, not to the Spirit of God, but to the spirit of 
evil, such men blasphemed not only the Son of Man— the Word 
of God when veiled in human flesh — but they rejected and blas- 
phemed the Spirit of God, and so had never forgiveness. 

This seems the true explanation of the sin against the Holy 
Ghost, namely, obstinate, resolute, and wilful impenitence, after all 
the means of grace and with all the strivings of the Spirit, under 
the Christian dispensation as distinguished from the Jewish, and 
amid all the blessings and privileges of the Church of Christ. 

And this view of the subject does not materially differ from the 
statement of St. Athanasius, namely, that blasphemy against Christ, 
when His manhood only was visible, was blasphemy against the 
Son of Man; but that, when His Godhead was manifested, it 
became blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: nor from that of St. 
Augustine, that the sin against the Spirit of God is a final and 
obdurate continuance in wickedness, despite of the calls of God to 
repentance, joined with a desperation of the mercy of God.4 


III. The last subject to which we come is the question of 
Final Perseverance, or the Indefectibility of Grace. 

The Article says, ‘“* After we have received the Holy Ghost, we 
may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of 
God we may arise again and amend our lives.” The arguments 
which have been already gone into, concerning the grant of repent- 
ance and pardon to those who sin after baptism and the grace of 
God, sufficiently prove the latter clause of the above statement. 
Indeed the former clause may be considered as proved also; for if 
there is a large provision in the Gospel and the Church for for- 
giveness of sins and reconciliation of those who, having received 
the Spirit, have fallen away, then must it be possible, that, ‘ after 


1 See the statement of their opinions in Sect. 1. 
50 


aa we. lS ee Se ee ee an 
ψ-- Ἂν» Ὗ 


894 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVL 


we have received the Holy Ghost, we may yet depart from 

and fall into sin.” Jovinian indeed held that every truly baptized 
person could sin no more. But such an error has been very un- 
common in the Church, so uncommon that it is scarcely needful - 
to prove that a person may have received grace and yet be 
tempted and fall into sin; as David so grievously fell in the matter 
of Uriah, or as St. Peter, when he denied his Lord. . But the 
question, whether a person who has once received grace can ever 
fall finally and irrecoverably, has been much agitated since the 
days of Zuingle and Calvin; and though possibly not expressly 
determined by the wording of this Article, it yet properly comes 
to be considered hére. 

The doctrine of the Zuinglians and high Calvinists has been, 
that if a man has once been regenerate and endued with the Holy 
Ghost, he may fall into sin for a time, but will surely be restored 
again, and can never finally be lost. We have seen, on the con- 
trary, that St. Augustine and the more ancient predestinarians 
held that grace might have been given, but yet, if a person was 
not predestinated to perseverance, he might fall away. We have 
seen that the Lutherans held that grace given might yet be lost 
utterly. We have seen that the reformers of the Church of 
England, whether following St. Augustine in his views of predesti- 
nation or not, appear clearly to have agreed with him, and with 
Luther and the Lutherans, in holding that grace might be lost, 
not only for the time, but finally. 

1. The passages of Scripture most in favour of the doctrine 
that those who have once been regenerate can never finally fall 
from grace, are such as follow. 

Matt. xxiv. 24, which must be set aside, if rightly translated. 
Luke xxii. 32, which shows that our Lord prays for His servants. 
John vi. 39; John x. 27, 28; but these last must be compared 
with John xvii. 12, which shows, that though the true sheep of 
Christ never perish, yet some may, like Judas, be given Him for 
a time, and yet finally be sons of perdition. Rom. viii. 38, 39, 
xi. 29, show that God is faithful and will never repent of His 
mercy to us, and that, if we do not wilfully leave Him, no created 
power shall be able to pluck us out of His hand. They prove no 
more than this. 

Stronger by far are such passages as 1 Cor. i. 8,9; Phil. i. 6; 


1 The English version translates εἰ Calvinistic theory is in the words ἐξ were, 
δυνατὸν “ if it were possible.” The whole which are not in the Greek. Render it 
strength of the passage as favouring the “if possible,’ and the argument is gone. 





Sec. IL] , OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 395 


2 Thess. iii. 8. Yet they are addressed to whole Churches, all the 
members of which are not certainly preserved blameless to the 
end. The confidence expressed concerning the Philippians (Phil. 
i. 6) cannot have meant that it was impossible for any of them to 
be lost ; for St. Paul afterwards exhorts them to ‘ work out their 
salvation with fear and trembling” (ii. 12), and to “stand fast in 
the Lord” (iv. 1). So that we must necessarily understand the 
Apostle’s confident hope to result from a consideration of the 
known goodness and grace of God, and also of the Philippians’ 
own past progress in holiness. ‘ He conjectured,” as Theophylact 
says, ““ from what was past, what they would be for the future.” ἢ 

The passages which speak of Christians as sealed, and having 
the ‘earnest of the Spirit,’ (see 2 Cor. 1. 21,22; Ephes. i. 18; 
iv. 80,) are thought to teach the indefectibility of grace ; because 
_ what is sealed is kept and preserved. But sealing probably only 
signifies the ratifying of a covenant, which is done in baptism. 
And though the giving of the Spirit is indeed the earnest of a 
future inheritance, it does not follow that no unfaithfulness in the 
Christian may deprive him of the blessing, of which God has given 
him the earnest and pledge, because a covenant always implies two 
parties, and if either breaks it, the other is free. 

So again Jas. i. 17 tells us of the unchangeableness of God, 
and 2 Tim. ii. 19 shows that He ““ knoweth them that are His.” 
But neither proves that we may not change, nor that all who are 
now God’s people will continue so to the end, though he knoweth 
who will and who will not. 

The expression “ full assurance of hope ” (Heb. vi. 11) has been 
thought to prove that we may be always certain of continuance, 
if we have once known the grace of God. But the Apostle does 
not ground the “assurance of hope”? on such a doctrine. . His 
words are: ‘“* We desire that every one of you do show the same 
diligence to the full assurance of hope to the end; that ye be not 
slothful, but followers of them who through faith and_ patience 
inherit the promises.” This shows, that our assured hope. will 
spring from a close walk with God, and that slothfulness, or a 
lack of diligence, is likely to impair our hope and disturb our 
assurance. Tlie more diligent we are, the more hope we shall 
have; our hope not being grounded on the indefectibility of grace, 
. but on the evidences of our faith given by a consistent growth 
in grace. 


1 ἀπὸ τῶν παρελϑοντῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν μελλόντων THAN: — Theophyl. in loc, 
quoted by Whitby, whom see. 





896 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVL 


Again, 1 Pet. i. 4, 5, speaks of an inheritance “ reserved in 
heaven for those who are kept by the power of God, through faith 
unto salvation.” The word “kept” is in the Greek φρουρουμένους, 
i. 6. * guarded as in a garrison.” The figure represents believers 
as attacked by evil spirits and wicked men, but defended by the 
power of God, through the influence of their faith. It does not 
show that all believers are kept from falling away ; but that they 
are guarded by God through the instrumentality of their faith. 
“If” then ‘ they continue in the faith’ (Col. i. 23), “if they hold 
the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end” (Heb. iii. 
14), then will “their faith be able to quench all the fiery darts of 
the wicked one” (Eph. vi. 16), and will “overcome the world” 
(1 John ν. 4). But, as it is expressly said that it is “ through 
faith”? that they are “kept” or ‘ guarded,” we cannot infer 
that their faith itself is so guarded that it can by no possibility 
fail. 

But the strongest passage on this side of the question is 1 John 
iii. 9: ** Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his 
seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of 
God.” From this Jovinian inferred that a regenerate man could 
never sin again; but the Zuinglian and Calvinist infer, that the re- 
generate man having the seed of life in him, may indeed fall into 
sin, but is sure to recover himself again, and to be saved at the last. 
If the text proves anything about indefectibility of grace, it plainly 
proves Jovinian’s rather than Calvin’s position ; namely, that the 
regenerate man never falls into sin at all, not merely that he does 
not fall finally. 

The truth is, the Apostle is simply contrasting the state of the 
regenerate with that of the unregenerate, and tells us, that sin is 
the mark of the latter, holiness of the former. ‘* He that doeth 
righteousness is righteous . . . he that committeth sin is of the devil ” 
(vv. T, 8). Here is the antithesis. It is like the statement, “ A 
good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree 
bring forth good fruit” (Matt. vii. 18). This does not mean, that 
a good tree can never cease to be good, and so cease to bear good 
fruit.2 So it is with that of St. Paul, ‘The carnal mind cannot 
be subject to the law of God” (Rom. viii. 7). But it is not meant, 
that a man of carnal mind may not be converted, and then love 
holiness and God’s law. So Ignatius writes, “‘ Spiritual men can- 


1 rae Whitby and Macknight on 1 Pet. ae In Matt, vii. 18, Tom. rv. pt. 
. 4,5 Ῥ 25, cited by Dr. "Hammond on 
2’ Bona arbor non fert malos fructus, 1 John iii. 9. 

guaradiu in bonitatis studio perseverat. % 


Szc. Il.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 


397 


not do the things of the flesh ;" 1 that is, obviously, so long as they 
continue spiritual. 

Just so St. John. He points out the difference between the 
righteous and the wicked; namely, that the former do righteous- 
ness, the latter commit sin. Then he says, ** Every one that is born 
of God? cannot sin, because of the seed of God which is in him.” 
He is righteous, and therefore doeth righteousness; he is a good 
tree, and therefore cannot bring forth bad fruit ; he is spiritual, and 
therefore cannot do carnal things. But this does not prove that 
he may not fall from grace, and so lose his title to be a son of 
God, and also that seed of God in his heart which keeps him from 
sin. ‘ The regenerate man,” says Jerome, “cannot sin so long 
as he continues in the generation of God .... but, if we admit 
sin, and the devil enters into the door of our hearts, Christ goes 
away.” ὃ 

2. So much of the arguments from Scripture by which the doc- 
trine that grace in the regenerate can never fail has been main- 
tained. Against this doctrine many passages of Scripture are 
alleged. 

(1) There are frequent statements of the condemnation and 
rejection of such as, having been in a state of grace, fall away 
from it, and which it is hard to believe are only meant to frighten 
us away from an impossible danger. Such are 

Ezek. xviii. 24; xxxiii. 18. Matt. v. 18. Matt. xxiv. 46-51, ᾿ 
comp. Luke xxi. 34-36. Heb. x. 26-29, 38. 2 Pet. ii. 20-22. 

(2) There are declarations, that those only ‘* who endure to the 
end” shall be saved, those ‘who keep their garments” shall be 
blessed ; that ““ 7f we continue in the faith grounded and settled, and 
be not moved away,” we shall be presented holy in the sight of 
God. 

Matt. x. 22. Col. i. 22,23. Heb. iii. 6. Rev. xvi. 15. 

Thus final salvation is promised not merely to present, but to 
continuing and persevering faith. 


1 Ignat. Ad Eph. c. viii. 
2 πᾶς ὁ yeyevvnuévoc. Rosenmiiller says 
that it is the same as γεννῆτός 45. 


Job xiv. 1, or τεκνὸν, as in ver. 10. And 
Dr. Hammond observes, that the perfect 
participle indicates that we must not 
refer the words “born of God” to the 
moment or instant of regeneration, but 
to the continuing state of regeneration. 
It indicates not a transient, but a per- 
manent condition. 

3 He thus explains the passage in St. 
John: “ Propterea, inquit, scribo vobis, 


filioli mei; omnis, qui natus est ex Deo, 
non peccat, ut non peccetis ; et tamdiu 
sciatis vos in generatione Domini per- 
manere quamdiu non peccaveritis. Immo, 
qui in generatione Domini perseverant 
peccare non possunt. Que enim com- 
municatio luci et tenebris? Christo et 
Belial? . . . . Si susceperimus Christum 
in hospitio nostri pectoris, illico fugamus 
Diabolum. Si peccaverimus, et per pec- 
cati januam ingressus fuerit Diabolus, 
protinus Christus recedit.””— Hieron. Adv. 
Jovin, Lib, 11. init. Tom. rv. Par. 11, p. 198. 





898 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. (Arr. XVI 


(8) Accordingly, there are numerous warnings against falling 
away, exhortations to stand fast, and prayers for perseverance and 
against falling. 

Rom. xi. 20,21. 1Cor. x. 1-10,12. 1 Cor. xvi. 18. Col. ii. 
6, 7,8, 1 Thess. v. 19. Heb. iii, 12; xii. 15,16. 2 Pet. iii. 
17. Jude 20, 21, 24. Rev. xvi. 15. 

All these passages speak of the danger of falling away, and of 
the final condemnation of such as fall, and warn and pray against 
falling. ‘The advocates for the doctrine of final perseverance say, 
that although all grace comes only from God; yet He ordains 
means to be used for obtaining grace ; so, although perseverance is 
the gift of God, and never withholden from such as receive grace 
at all ; yet warnings against backsliding, and declarations concern- 
ing the punishment of backsliders, are useful and necessary means 
to keep believers in a state of watchfulness, and therefore are in- 
struments in God’s hands to work in them the grace of persever- 
ance, which however could as easily be given without them, and will 
assuredly be given to all who have once been regenerate. Their 
opponents reply, that such reasoning is an evident attempt to ex- 
plain away the obvious sense of Scripture ; God’s threatenings 
could never be denounced against a sin which was impossible. If 
utter falling away in the regenerate is, in God’s counsels, a thing 
which cannot occur, then can we believe that God would give the 


᾿ most solemn warnings to be found in the whole of Scripture against 


it? Would the Apostle put up the most earnest prayers against 
it? Would the condemnation pronounced upon it be so severe 
and so terrible? But it is argued farther, that, 

(4) There are express and positive statements, that men may, 
nay, do, fall away from grace given and accepted, and so do finally 
perish. 

The parable of the sower (Matt. xiii. Mark iv. Luke viii.) con- 
tains a statement of this kind. Four different kinds of hearers are 
there described. Of these, one, the way-side hearer, disregards it 
altogether ; one, compared to good ground, receives and profits by 
it, and brings forth fruit to life eternal. But two kinds, those like 
the stony ground, and those like the thorny ground, embrace it 
and profit by it for a time, and then fall away. The seed in the 
stony ground springs up (Matt. xiii, 5), Such hearers received the 
seed with joy (ver. 20), but they last only for a while (ver. 21); 
they “for a while believe, but in time of temptation fall away ” 
(Luke viii. 13). So the seed which falls among thorns springs up ; 
but the thorns spring up with it, and choke it. ‘ The cares of 


Sxc. IL] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 399 


this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word ” (Mutt. 
xiii. 22). 

Again, the parable of the Vine and the Branches (John xv. 
1-10) teaches the same thing. Christ’s disciples are compared to 
branches of a Vine, the Lord Himself being that Vine. “Every — 
branch,” He says, “ in Me that beareth not fruit, He ” (ὦ. e. God 
the Father) “‘ taketh away” (ver. 2). “1 am the Vine, ye are 
. the branches; he that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same 
bringeth forth much fruit ; for without Me ye can do nothing. Jf 
aman abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, 
and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are 
burned ” (vv. 5,6). 

Heb. vi. 4-8, seems to contain a positive statement that men do 
sometimes so fall away from grace already received as to fall not 
only finally but hopelessly : ‘* It is impossible for those who were 
once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were 
made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word 
of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall 
away, to renew them again unto repentance ; seeing they crucify 
to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open 
shame,” &c. 

So 2 Pet. ii. 21, 22. The Apostle is evidently speaking of per- 
sons who had fallen away from grace, apostates from the faith of 
Christ. For though, in ver. 20, he speaks only hypothetically, 
“If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world,” &c., yet 
in vv. 21, 22, he speaks of their apostasy as having actually oc- 
curred: ‘It had been better for them not to have known the way 
of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the 
holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened 
(συμβέβηκε) unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is 
turned to his own vomit again 5 and the sow that was washed to 
her wallowing in the mire.’ 

(5) Finally, it is contended that, with all these proofs from 
Scripture that grace given may be lost, the doctrine of the inde- 
fectibility of grace would never have been thought of, but that it 
fell naturally into a system. Accordingly, the more ancient pre- 
destinarians, like Augustine, though they believed in the irrespec- 
tive and immutable decrees of God, yet did not teach the doctrine 
of absolutely indefectible grace. But Calvin’s great characteristic 
was his logical acuteness, which led him to form all his doctrines 
into harmonious systems. He could never leave mysterious doc- 
trines in their mystery, on the principle that our finite intellects 





are permitted to grasp only part of the great secck alii 
Wisdom. The doctrine of final perseverance seemed necessary to 
the harmony and completeness of the predestinarian scheme ; and 
on that account, not hecsuse. Scripture taught it, it was sdopted 
and received. | 


ARTICLE XVIL 


--.-- 


Of Predestination and Election. 


PREDESTINATION to life is the ever- 
lasting purpose of God, whereby (before 
the foundations of the world were laid) 
He hath constantly decreed by His coun- 
sel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and 
damnation those whom He hath chosen 
in Christ out of mankind, and to bring 
them by Christ to everlasting salvation, 
as vessels made to honour. Wherefore 
they which be endued with so excellent 
a benefit of God be called according to 
God’s purpose by His Spirit working in 
due season: they through grace obey the 
calling : they be justified freely : they be 
made sons of God by adoption ; they be 
made like the image of His only-begot- 
ten Son Jesus Christ; they walk relig- 
iously in good works, and at length, by 
God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting 
felicity. 

As the godly consideration of predesti- 
nation and our election in Christ, is full 
of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable com- 
tort to godly persons, and such as feel in 
themselves the working of the Spirit of 
Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, 
and their earthly members, and drawing 
up their mind to high and heavenly 
things, as well because it doth greatly 
establish and confirm their faith of eter- 
nal salvation to be enjoyed through 
Christ, as because it doth fervently kin- 
dle their love towards God: so, for curi- 
ous and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit 
of Christ, to have continually before their 
eyes the sentence of God’s predestination 
is a most dangerous downfall, whereby 
the Devil doth thrust them either into 
desperation, or into wretchlessness of 
most unclean living, no less perilous than 
desperation. 

Furthermore, we must receive God’s 
promises in such wise, as they be gener- 
ally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: 
and, in our doings that will of God is to 
be followed, which we have expressly 
declared unto us in the Word of God. 


De Preedestinatione et Electione. 


PREDESTINATIO ad vitam, est eternum 
Dei propositum, quo ante jacta mundi 
fundamenta, suo consilio, nobis quidem 
occulto, constanter decrevit, eos quos in 
Christo elegit ex hominum genere, a 
maledicto et exitio liberare, atque (ut 
vasa in honorem efficta) per Christum, ad 
zternam salutem adducere. Unde qui 
tam preclaro Dei beneficio sunt donati, 
illi Spiritu ejus, opportuno tempore ope- 
rante, secundum propositum ejus, vocan- 
tur, vocationi per gratiam parent, justi- 
ficantur gratis, adoptantur in filios Dei, 
Unigeniti ejus Jesu Christi imagini ef 
ficiuntur conformes, in bonis operibus 
sancte ambulant, et demum ex Dei mis- 
ericordia pertingunt ad sempiternam feli- 
citatem. 

Quemadmodum predestinationis, et 
electionis nostre in Christo pia consid- 
eratio, dulcis, suavis, et ineffabilis con- 
solationis plena est, vere piis, et iis qui 
sentiunt in se vim Spiritus Christi, facta 
carnis, et membra, que adhuc sunt super 
terram, mortificantem, animumque ad 
celestia et superna rapientem : tum quia 
fidem nostram de eterna salute conse- 
quenda per Christum plurimum stabilit, 
atque confirmat, tum quia amorem nos- 
trum in Deum vehementer accendit: ita 
hominibus curiosis, carnalibus, et Spiritu 
Christi destitutis, ob oculos perpetuo ver- 
sari predestinationis Dei sententiam, per- 
nitiosissimum est precipitium, unde illos 
diabolus protrudit, vel in desperationem, 
vel in eque pernitiosam impurissime 
vite securitatem. Deinde promissiones 
divinas sic amplecti oportet, ut nobis in 
sacris literis generaliter proposite sunt, 
et Dei voluntas in nostris actionibus ea 
sequenda est, quam in verbo Dei habe- 
mus, diserte revelatam. 





Srcrion I. — HISTORY. 


ΤῊΕ XVIIth Article is almost, word for word, the same as the 


original Article of 1552. 
51 


402 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


The questions concerning God’s eternal predestination are by 
no means peculiar to the Christian religion. The Essenes among 
the Jews, Zeno and the Stoics, and the followers of Mohammed, 
were all rigid predestinarians ; believing that all the affairs of the 
world and the actions of the human race were ordered by an eter- 
nal and inexorable decree. 

In the Christian Church there has never been any doubt or 
question, but that the Scriptures teach us concerning the election 
and predestination of God. All Christians believe in the doctrine 
of election. The question is, therefore, not whether the doctrine 
of election is true, but what the meaning of election is. Now on 
this point there is a vast variety of sentiment. 

1. Calvinism. The doctrine of Calvin and the Calvinists is, 
that from all eternity God predestinated a certain fixed number of 
individuals, irrespective of anything in them, to final salvation and 
glory ; and that all others are either predestined to damnation, or, 
at least, so left out of God’s decree to glory that they must in- 
evitably perish. 

2. Arminianism. The doctrine of Arminius and the Arminians 
is, that, from all eternity, God predestinated a certain fixed number 
of individuals to glory ; but that this decree was not arbitrary, but 
in consequence of God’s foreknowledge, that those so predestinated 
would make a good use of the grace given; and that, as God 
necessarily foresees all things, so foreseeing the faith of individuals, 
He hath, in strict justice, ordered His decrees accordingly. 

According to both these schemes, election is to life eternal: and 
the elect are identical with the finally saved. 

3. Nationalism. The opinion of Locke and some others is, 
that the election, spoken of by God in Scripture, does not concern 
individuals at all, but applies only to nations ; that, as God chose 
the Jews at one time to be His people, so He has since ordained 
certain nations to be brought into the pale of the Christian Church. 
Here the elect are all Christian nations. 

4. Ecclesiastical Election. Others have held, that, as the Jews 
of old were God’s chosen people, so now is the Christian Church ; 
that every baptized member of the Church is one of God’s elect, 
and that this election is from God’s irrespective and unsearchable 
decree. Here therefore election is to baptismal privileges, not to 
final glory ; and the elect are identical with the baptized; and the 
election constitutes the Church. 

5. Some have held, that there is an election to baptism of some 
individuals, and again an election out of the elect: so that some 


Src. L] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 408 


are elected by God’s inscrutable decree to grace, and from among 
these some by a like inscrutable decree to perseverance and to 
glory. Here the elect are, in one sense of the word, identical 
with the baptized; in another sense of the word, with the finally 
saved. / . 

6. Lastly, some have taught, that, whereas to all Christians 
grace enough is given to insure salvation, if they will use it, yet 
to some amongst them is given, by God’s eternal decree, a yet 
greater degree of grace, such that by it they must certainly be 
saved. This is the theory which has sometimes been called 
Bazterian, from Richard Baxter, the distinguished nonconformist 
divine. 

The subject of predestination naturally embraces other cognate 
subjects, such as original sin, free-will, final perseverance, partie- 
ular redemption, and reprobation. The three former have been 
considered under the [Xth, Xth, and X VIth Articles respectively, 
and much of the history of the predestinarian controversy will be 
found under the history of those Articles.! 

From the classification above given it will be evident, that the 
mere use of the terms election or predestination by a writer will 
not at all determine in what sense that writer uses them, nor to 
which of the six classes above enumerated his doctrines may be 
assigned. 

Among the earlier fathers, especially those of the apostolic age, 
the language used is mostly general, and therefore difficult to fix 
to a particular meaning. 

Clement of Rome speaks of a sedition in the Church, ‘as alien 
and foreign from the elect of God.”? ‘ Ye contended,” he writes, 
“day and night for the whole brotherhood, that, with compassion 
and a good conscience, the number of His elect might be saved.’’ ὃ 
To the same Church of Corinth he speaks of God as having 
‘‘made us unto Himself a part of the election. For thus it is 
written, When the Most High divided the nations, when He sepa- 
rated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations accord- 
ing to the number of the angels; His people Jacob became the 


1 The five points of Calvinism, as they 
are called, are, — 

1. Predestination, including Predesti- 
nation, or election to life eternal, and 
Reprobation, or Predestination to dam- 
nation. 

2. Particular Redemption, 7. e. That 
Christ died only for a chosen few. 

8. Original Sin. 


4. Irresistible Grace, or effectual call- 
ing, the opposite to which is Free will. 

5. Final Perseverance. 

8 τῆς ἀλλοτρίας καὶ ξένης τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς 
τοῦ Θεοῦ μιαρᾶς καὶ ἀνοσίου στάσεως.---- 1 Ep. 
ad Corinth. 1. 

4 εἰς τὸ σώζεσϑαι per’ ἐλέους Kal ovvet 
δήσεως τὸν ἀριϑμὸν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ. --- 
ΤΡ. ad Corinth. 2. 


ΤΌΣ 





404 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance. And 
in another place he saith, Behold the Lord taketh to Himself a na- 
tion from the midst of the nations, as a man taketh the first-fruits 
of his threshing-floor, and from that nation shall come the Holy of 
Holies.”! ‘In love have been perfected all the elect of God.’ 2 
*¢ Now God, who seeth all things, the Father of spirits and the 
Lord of all flesh, who hath elected our Lord Jesus Christ, and us 
by Him to be His peculiar people, grant to every soul,” ὃ. ὥς. 

Ignatius addresses the Church of Ephesus as “ blessed through 
the greatness and fulness of God the Father, predestinated before 
the worlds continually to glory, — glory enduring, unchangeable, 
united, and elected in true suffering according to the will of God 
the Father, and of Jesus Christ our God.’’* In the same manner 
he addresses “‘ the holy Church which is in Tralles”’ as “ beloved 
by God the Father of Jesus Christ, elect and worthy of God.” ® 

Hermas, in the book of his Visions, constantly speaks of God’s 
elect: ** God, who hath founded His holy Church, will remove the 
heavens and the mountains, the hills and the seas, . . . . all things 
shall be made plain to His elect,” . . . . or, ‘shall be filled with 
His elect.” ‘ Canst thou report these things to the elect?’’7 
“ Go ye and declare to the elect of God His mighty acts.”* The 
Apostles, bishops, and ministers are said to have ministered to the 
elect of God.® 


1 Πατέρα ἡμῶν, ὃς ἐκλογῆς μέρος ἐποίησεν Θεῷ Πατρὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἁγίᾳ, τῇ 


ἑαυτῷ. Οὕτω γὰρ γέγραπται" Ὅτε διεμέρι- 
σεν 6 Ὕψιστος ἔϑνη, ὡς δὲ ἔσπειρεν υἱοὺς 
᾿Αδὰμ, ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐϑνῶν κατὰ ἀριϑμὸν 
δ: ἐγενῆϑη μερὶς Κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ 
Ἰακὼβ, σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτου ᾿Ισραὴλ' 
καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ λέγει " ᾿Ιδοὺ Κύριος λαμβώ- 
νει ἑαυτῷ ἔϑνος ἐκ μέσου ἐϑνῶν, ὥσπερ λαμ- 
βάνει ἄνϑρωπος τὴν ἀπαρχὴν αὐτοῦ τῆς ἅλω " 
καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ τοῦ ἔϑνους ἐκείνου ἅγια 
ἁγίων. ---- 1 Ep. ad Corinth. 29. 

2 ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐτελειώϑησαν πώντες of ἐκλεκτοὶ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ. --- Ibid. 49. 

ὅ Ὁ παντεπόπτης Θεὸς καὶ Δεσπότης τῶν 
πνευμώτων καὶ Κύριος πάσης σαρκὸς, ὁ ἐκλε- 
ξάμενος τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, καὶ ἡμᾶς 
δι᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον, δῴη, κ. τ. A, — 
Ibid. 58. 

4 "Ιγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ εὐλογημένῃ 
ἐν μεγέϑει Θεοῦ Πατρὸς πληρώματι, τῇ πρω- 
ορισμένῃ πρὸ αἰώνων διὰ bondi εἰς δόξαν, 
παράμονον, ἄτρεπτον, ἠνωμένην καὶ ἐκλελεγ- 
μένην, ἐν πάϑει ἀληϑινῷ, ἐν ϑελήματι τοῦ 
dy καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, 

ἡ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἀξιομακαρίστῳ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν 
᾿Εφέσῳ re ᾿Ασίας, x. τ. A. —Ignat. Ad 


Ephes. 1. 
ἀν ἫΝ ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, ἠγαπημένῳ 


οὔσῃ ἐν Τράλλεσιν τῆς ᾿Ασίας, ἐκλεκτὴ καὶ 
dgwodiy. —Ignat. Ad Trail. 1. 

® “Ecce Deus virtutum qui... . virtu- 
te sua potenti condidit ecclesiam suam 
quam benedixit: ecce transferet coelos ac 
montes, colles ac maria, et omnia plana 
(al. plena), fient electis ejus ; ut reddat 
illis repromissionem guam repromisit,” 
&ec. — Lib. 1. Vis. 1. 8. 

7 « Potes hee electis Dei renunciare ?” 
— Lib. 1. : 

8 “ Vade ergo et enarra electis Dei 
magnalia ipsius. Et dices illis quod 
bestia hec figura est pressure superven- 
ture. Si ergo preparaveritis vos, poter- 
itis effugere illam, si cor venturum fuerit 

urum et sine macula. .... γε dubiis 
lis, qui audierint verba hec et contem 
serint; melius erat illis non nasci.’”’ — Lib. 
1. Vis. ΤΥ. 2. 

® “ Apostoli et episcopi et doctores et 
ministri, qui ingressi sunt in clementia 
Dei, et episcopatum gesserunt, et docu- 
erunt, et ministraverunt sancte et mo- 
deste electis Dei qui dormiverunt quique 
adhuc sunt.” — Lib. 1, Vis. 1. 6. 


Sec. 1.1 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 405 


Here we have the elect spoken of as identical with the Church. 
We even find language which seems to prove that Hermas consid- 
ered the elect as in a state of probation in this world which might 
end either in their salvation or in their condemnation. ‘Then 
shall their sins be forgiven which they have committed, and the sins 
of all the saints, who have sinned even to this day, if they shall re- 
pent with all their hearts, and put away all doubts out of their 
hearts. For the Lord hath sworn by His glory concerning His 
elect, having determined this very time, even now, if any one shall 
sin, he shall not have salvation.””!_ On the other hand, in one pas- 
sage he seems to speak of a mansion of glory for the elect in the 
world to come: ‘** The white colour represents the age to come, in 
which shall dwell God’s elect; since the elect shall be pure and 
spotless unto eternal life.” 2 

These are the principal passages in the Apostolical Fathers con- 
cerning election and predestination. It would be a great point 
gained, if we could clearly ascertain their sentiments on this subject. 
They lived before philosophy had produced an effect on the lan- 
guage of theology. Now there is no question on which philosophy 
is likely to have produced greater effect than on the question con- 
cerning God’s eternal decrees. When, therefore, we come to the 
writings of such men as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Ori- 
gen, we naturally doubt, whether they speak the language of the 
Church in their days, or the language of their own thoughts and 
speculations. 

In the passages above cited, there is no marked trace of any of 
the three schemes which have been designated respectively as Cal- 
vinism, Arminianism, or Nationalism. One passage from Clement 
may seem to speak the language of Nationalism ; but it is only in 
appearance. That ancient father applies the term “ nation” to the 
Christian Church; but it is plain that he merely means, that, as 
the Israelites of old were chosen to be God’s peculiar people, so 
now His Church is, as it were, a nation chosen out of the nations. 
He speaks indeed of ‘*the number of God’s elect being saved,” as 
though there were a definite number of God’s elect, who should be 
saved in the end; language which, we shall see, is used also by 


1 “ Tune remittentur illis peccata, que 
jampridem peccaverunt, et omnibus 
sanctis qui peccaverunt usque in hodier- 


peccaverit aliquis, non habiturum illum 
salutem.’’ — Lib. 1. Vis. 11. 2. Compare 


num diem, et si toto corde suo egerint 
penitentiam, et abstulerint a cordibus 
suis dubitationes. Juravit enim Domina- 
tor ille, per gloriam suam, super electos 
suos, prefinita ista die, etiam nunc si 


with this the passage cited in note 8 of 
last page. 

2 « Alba autem pars superventuri est 
seculi in quo habitabunt electi Dei, quo- 
niam immaculati et puri erunt electi Dei 
in vitam e#ternam.” — Lib. 1. Vis. rv. ὃ. 


eS Γ᾽ 4% wei Oe ee Pe ee eee vy ene 





406 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. (Arr. XVIL 


Justin and Irenzus. Whether this was intended in the sense 
which would be affixed to it by Augustine or Calvin, must be a 
question. We may almost certainly say, it was not so used by 
Justin Martyr. There is also one passage, the last quoted from 
Hermas, in which the term elect seems used of those who are 
chosen to life eternal. All the other passages from the apostolical 
fathers identify the whole Church of God with the election, and 
therefore the elect with the baptized. It is most undesirable to 
put any force on language of such importance as the language of 
writers in the apostolic age. But on a fair review of the whole, it 
can hardly appear that these fathers speak of election in any sense 
but one of the two following: either (1) as an election of individ- 
uals to the Church and to baptism, or (2) possibly as an election 
first to baptism, and then a further election out of the baptized to 
glory. On the first sense, the passages seem clear and decided ; on 
the second, it seems but reasonable to admit that there is great 
doubt. 

In the history of the doctrine of free will) we saw that Justin 
Martyr ascribed free agency to all human beings, and argued that 
God does not cause actions, because He foresees them.? On the 
contrary, he defends Christians against the charge that they be- 
lieved in a fatal necessity. Our belief in the predictions of the 
prophet does not oblige us to believe that things take place accord- 
ing to fate. ‘This only,” he says, ‘* we hold to be fated, that they 
who choose what is good shall obtain a reward; that they who 
choose what is evil shall be punished.” ® So again soon after, he 
says that “ we assert future events to have been foretold by the 
prophets, not because we say that they should so happen by fatal 
necessity, but because God foreknew the future actions of all men.” 4 
And presently again he speaks of God deferring the punishment 
of the wicked, till the “‘ foreknown number of the good and virtu- 
ous should be fulfilled.””® Accordingly Bishop Kaye has concluded 
that, if Justin Martyr speaks anywhere of predestination to life eter- 
nal, itis in the Arminian sense, or, as it has been called, ex pre- 
visis meritis.6 But when Justin Martyr especially speaks of God's 
election, he appears clearly to intend by it an election of individ- 
uals out of the world, and the bringing them by His calling to be 


ἐπ hen * aba 82a. 


2 Dial. p ὁ αἱ eBid it τὸν epnre 


8 ἀλλ᾽ εἱμαρμέ ainsi τα σμένων γι μεθα 
Aha ἐαρμνην γαμῶν ἀπορίβ , τὰ ἄξια A χέων. σε a ae ἃ, 


ἐπιτίμια" cl τοῦς uta τὰ ἐναντία, τὸ ϊα 5 ΒΡ. Kaye’s Justin Vifartyr, p. 82. 
éxixerpa, — Apol, 1. p. 81 


OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 407 


of His peculiar people the Church. Thus, he is speaking of the 
Christian Church in antithesis to the Jewish, and he says, “ We 
are by no means a despicable people, nor a barbarous nation, like 
the Phrygians and the Carians; but God hath elected us, and has 
manifested Himself to those who asked not for Him. Behold I am 
God, saith He, to a nation that called not on my Name.” Then, 
speaking of the calling of Abraham by the grace of Christ, he con- 
tinues, “‘ By the same voice He hath called us all, and we have 
come out of the polity in which we lived, living evilly, after the 
manner of the other inhabitants of the world,” ! &c. 

It is probable therefore that, to whatever cause Justin Martyr 
may have assigned the final salvation of Christians, their election 
he considered to be a calling in from the people of the world to be 
members of the Church of Christ; as Abraham was called from 
among the Gentiles to be the founder of the chosen race. 

Trenzus, like Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr, speaks of a 
definite number of persons who shall be saved, and holds the opin- 
ion that the world shall last till this number is perfected. Yet he 
does not hint that any particular individuals were predestinated, 
of which that number should consist.2, As regards predestination 
to eternal death, he clearly speaks of that as the result of God’s 
foreknowledge of the wickedness of those whom He condemns, and 
says that the reason why God gave Pharaoh up to his unbelief 
was that He knew he never would believe. He asserts too, that 
God puts no constraint on any one to believe ; but that, foreknow- 
ing all things, He has prepared for all fitting habitations. Thus 
he was evidently no believer in the doctrine since called reproba- 
tion, nor in irresistible grace, or effectual calling. 

But it is probable that the meaning which he attached to the 


Src. 1.1 


1 Οὐκοῦν οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητος δῆμος ἐσμὲν, 
οὐδὲ βάρβαρον φῦλον, οὐδὲ ὁποῖα Καρῶν ἢ 
Φρυγῶν ἔϑνη, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξελέξατο ὁ Θεὸς, 
καὶ ἐμφανὴς ἐγενήϑη τοῖς μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν 
αὐτὸν. ᾿Ιδοὺ Θεός εἰμι, φησὶ τῷ ἔϑνει οἱ οὐκ 
ἐπεκαλέσαντο τὸ ὄνομά μου... . καὶ ἡμᾶς 
δὲ ἅπαντας δι᾽ ἐκείνης τῆς φωνῆς ἐκώλεσε, καὶ 
ἐξήλϑομεν ἤδη ἀπὸ τῆς πολιτείας ἐν ᾧ ἐζῶμεν, 
κ. τ. A. — Dial. p. 841. 

2 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πληρωϑέντος τοῦ ἀριϑμοῦ 
οὗ αὐτὸς παρ᾽ αὑτῷ προώρισε, πάντες οἱ éyypa- 
φέντες εἰς ζωὴν ἀναστήσονται. ... ἵνα τὸ 
σύμμετρον φῦλον τῆς προορίσεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ 
ἀνϑρωπότητος ἀποτελεσϑὲν τὴν ἁρμονίαν 
τηρήσῃ Tov Πατρὸς. --- Adv. Her. τι. 72. 

3 «Deus his quidem qui non credunt, 
sed nullificant eum, infert cecitatem. .. . 
Si igitur et nunc, quotquot scit non credi- 
turos Deus, cum sit omnium precognitor 
tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, et avertit 


faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in 
tenebris, quas ipsi sibi elegerunt; quid 
mirum, si et tunc nunquam crediturum 
Pharaonem, cum his qui cum eo erant, 
tradidit eos sux infidelitati,’ ὧς — Lib. 
ιν. 48, 

* «Nec enim lumen deficit propter eos 
qui semetipsos excecaverunt, sed illo 
perseverante quale et est excecati per 
suam culpam in caligine constituuntur. 
Negue lumen cum magna necessitate 
subjiciet sibi quemquam: neque Deus 
coget eum, qui nolit continere ejus artem. 
Qui igitur abstiterunt a paterno lumine 
et transgressi sunt legem libertatis, per 
suam abstiterunt culpam, liberi arbitrii 
et suse potestatis facti. Deus autem 
omnia preesciens, utrisque aptas prepa- 
ravit habitationes,” &¢c.— Lib. 1v. 76; 
Conf. Lib. v. 27, 28. 


Pe 


“a 


408 


Scriptural term election was, that God chose and elected certain 
persons to baptism and to be members of His Church. In speak- 
ing of Esau and Jacob, as types of the Jewish and the Christian 
Church, he explains St. Paul’s language, in the ninth of Romans, 
as meaning that God, who knoweth all things, was foretelling the 
rejection of the Jews, and the election of the Gentile Church.} 
Explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he 
says that God first planted the vineyard of the human race by the 
creation of Adam and the election of the fathers ; then let it out 
to husbandmen, the Jews, surrounding it with -a hedge, built a 
tower, and elected Jerusalem. But when they did not believe, He 
sent His Son, whom they slew. Then the tower of election being 
exalted and beautified, the vineyard, no longer walled round, but 
laid open to the world, is let to other husbandmen, who will bring 
forth the fruits. For the Church is everywhere illustrious; every- 
where the wine-press is dug round, because those who receive the 
Spirit are everywhere. And soon after, he says that the same 
Word of God who formerly elected the patriarchs has now elected 
us.2- Thus it appears that Irenzeus looked on the Jews as formerly, 
and on the Christian Church as now, the elect people of God ; and 
so he calls ‘the Church the synagogue or congregation of God, 
which He hath collected by Himself.” ὃ 

Tertullian says little or nothing to guide us to his view of the 
doctrine of election, except that, in arguing against certain heretics, 
he maintains that it is unlawful so to ascribe all things to the will of 
God as to take away our own responsibility and freedom of action.* 


OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVII. 





1 “Tn ea enim epistola que est ad 
Romanos, ait Apostolus; Sed et Rebecca ex 
uno concubitu habens Isane patris nostri; a 
Verbo responsum acceit, ut secundum elec- 
tionem propositum Dei permaneat, non ex 
operibus, sed ex vocante, dictum est ei: Duo 
populi in utero tuo, et duce gentes in ventre 
tuo, et populus si pant superabit, et major 
serviet minori. Ix quibus manifestum est 
non solum prophetationes patriarcharum, 
sed et partum Rebecce prophetiam fuisse 
duorum populorum: et unum quidem 
esse majorem, alterum vero minorem; 
et alterum quidem sub servitio, alterum 
autem liberum ; unius autem et ejusdem 

atris. Unus et idem Deus noster et 
illorum ; qui est absconsorum cognitor, 
qui scit omnia antequam fiant; et prop- 
ter hoc dixit; Jacob dilex’, Esau autem 
odio habui.’”’ — Lib. ry. 38. 

2 “Plantavit enim Deus vineam hu- 
mani generis, primo quidem per plas- 
mationem Ade, et electionem patrum : 
tradidit autem eam colonis per eam legis 


dationem que est per Moysem; sepem 
autem circumdedit, id est, cireumtermi- 
navit eorum culturam ; et turrim edifi- 
cavit, Hierusalem elegit . . .. Non cre- 
dentibus autem illis, &c. .... tradidit 
eam Dominus Deus non jam circumval- 
latam, sed expansam in universum mun- 
dum aliis colonis, reddentibus fructus 
temporibus suis, turre electionis exaltata 
ubique et speciosa. Ubique enim pre- 
clara est ecclesia, et ubique circumfossum 
torcular: ubique enim sunt qui suscipi- 
unt Spiritum . . . . Sed quoniam et pa- 
triarchas qui elegit et nos, idem est Ver- 
bum Dei,” ἃς. — Lib. rv. 70. 

3 κε Deus stetit in synagoga, ἕο. De Pa- 
tre et Filio et de his qui adoptionem 
perceperunt, dicit; hi autem sunt eccle- 
sia. Hec enim est synagoga Dei, quam 
Deus, hoc est, Filius ipse, per semetip- 
sum collegit.”” — Lib. 111. 6. 

4 “Non est bone et solide fidei, sic 
omnia ad voluntatem Dei referre : et ita 
adulari unumquemque, dicendo nihil fieri 


Sec. I.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 409 


Clement of Alexandria appears to have used the same language 
as his predecessors, concerning the Church as the election, and all 
Christians as the elect of God. He especially detines the Church 
as the general assembly of the elect! So he quotes Hermas as 
saying, that the Church is held together by that faith by which 
God’s elect are saved.2—_ The Church, according to Clement, is the 
body of Christ, a holy and spiritual company ; but they who be- 
long to it, but live not uprightly, are, as it were, but the flesh of 
the body.2 He holds the Church to be one, into which are col- 
lected all those who are righteous according to the purpose (κατὰ 
πρόθεσιν) ; and continues, that the Church is one, which collects 
together by the will of God those already ordained, whom God 
hath predestinated.* 

But then when we come to the ground or cause of God’s elec- 
tion, we find that Clement seems to speak of it as being God’s 
foreknowledge. Thus, in the last passage referred to, he says, the 
Church embraces “ all whom God hath predestinated, having fore- 
known that they would be righteous before the foundation of the 
world.” ® So he speaks of each person as partaker of the benefit, 
according to his own will; for the choice and exercise of the soul 
constitutes the difference of the election.6 Accordingly, Bishop 
Kaye thinks, “ it is evident that Clement must have held the doc- 
trine of predestination in the Arminian sense :᾿ and Mr. Faber 
says, that ‘ this prescientific solution is for the first time enounced 
by the speculative Clement of Alexandria.” 8 

Whether Justin and Irenzeus had in any degree enounced the 
same before, may be a fair question. The causation of sin they 
clearly refused to attribute to God, declaring that, where He is said 
to have hardened, it was because He foresaw the sinner was irre- 
claimable. And though Clement of Alexandria speaks more 
clearly than either of them, concerning God’s foreknowledge as the 
sine jussione Ejus: ut non intelligamus 


aliquid esse in nobis ipsis. Caterum 
excusabitur omne delictum, si continueri- 


οἱ κατὰ “πρόϑεσιν δίκαιοι ἐγκαταλέγονται .. ‘ 
μόνην εἶναι φάμεν τὴν ἀρχαίαν. καὶ καϑολικὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν. ... Ov ἑνός τοῦ Κυρίου συνά. 


mus nihil fieri a nobis sine Dei volun- 
tate.””— De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 2. 
See Bishop Kaye’s view of Tertullian’s 
opinion on this subject in his account of 
Tertullian, p. 341. 

1 τὸ ἄϑροισμα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἐκκλησίαν 
καλῶ. --- Stromat. Vit. p 846, Potter. 

2 Ἡ τοίνυν συνέχουσα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ὡς 
φησὶν ὁ ποιμὴν, ἀρετὴ ἡ πίστις ἐστὶ, δι᾽ ἧς 
σώζονται οἱ ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. — Stromat. 
Lib. 11. p. 458, Potter. 

8 See ‘Stromat. Lib. vii. p. 885. 
4 μίαν εἶναι τὴν ἀληϑῆ ἐκκλησίαν, εἰς ἣν 
52 


γουσαν τοὺς ἤδη κατατεταγμένους, ov¢ προώ- 
ρισεν 6 Θεὸς. ---- Strom. vit. p. 899. 

5 οὺς προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς, δικαίους ἐσομένους 
πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἐγνωκώς. ---- Ibid. 

6 μεταλαμβάνει δὲ τῆς εὐποιίας ἕκαστοι 
ἡμῶν πρὸς ὃ βούλεται" ἐπεὶ τὴν διαφορὰν 
τῆς ἐκλογῆς ἀξία γενομένῃ ψυχῆς αἵρεσίς τε 
καὶ συνάσκησις πεποίηκεν. ---- Strom. v. sub 
Jine, p. 184. 

7 Bp. Kaye, Clement. Alex. p. 484. 
Prob Primitive Doctrine of Election, 
p. 269 


410 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


ground of His predestination, yet he does not differ from them 
in the view that the Church of God is composed of the elect peo- 
ple of God. 

Some divines of the Roman Communion! have endeavoured to 
discover the doctrines of St. Augustine in the writings of Clement ; 
but it is only because he ascribes the beginning, the continuance, 
and the perfection of religion in the soul, to the grace of God, that 
they have thence inferred that, as it is all of grace, so it must all 
be of absolute predestination. Yet every one, but slightly ac- 
quainted with the predestinarian controversy, must know, that the 
chief disputants on every side of this troublesome argument have 
all alike agreed in ascribing the whole work of religion in the soul 
to God’s grace and the operations of His Spirit ; the question hay- 
ing only been, Is that grace irresistible or not? Is the freedom of 
the will utterly extinguished by it, or not? The passage espe- 
cially referred to by Bossuet, in proof of the Austinism (so to speak) 
of Clement, is the prayer with which he concludes his Padagogue, 
and which is simply, — that God would grant us, that following 
His commandments we may become fully like Him, and that He 
would grant, that all passing their lives in peace, and being trans- 
lated into His kingdom or polity, having sailed over the waves of 
sin, may be borne through still waters by His Holy Spirit, and 
may praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; day and night 
unto the perfect day. And to this prayer he adds, that “ Since the 
Pedagogue (i. ὁ. the Word of God) has brought us into His 
Church, and joined us to Himself, it will be well for us being there 
to offer up thanksgiving to the Lord, in return for His gracious 
guidance and instruction.2. This passage, however, rather corre- 
sponds with what we have seen to be the general doctrine of Clem- 
ent, as probably of his predecessors, namely, that God’s election 
brought men to baptism and to His Church, and that His grace, 
given to them there, enabled them, if not determined to quench 
the Spirit, to go on shining more and more unto the perfect day, 

From this time forth, although the belief in God’s election of 
individuals into His Church, and a frequent identification of the 
Church with the elect, is observable in all the patristic writers of 
eminence ; yet when the question concerning the final salvation of 


1 Bossuet, Défense de la Tradition et des ἐκκλησίαν ἡμᾶς καταστῆσας ὁ Παιδαγωγὸς 
Saints Peres, Tom. 11. Liv. xt. chap.26; αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ παρακατέθετο τῷ διδασ' 
Lumper, Historia Theoloyico- Critica, Tom: καὶ πανεπισκόπῳ Λόγῳ, καλὼς ἂν ἔχοι ἡμᾶς 
Iv. p. 285. ἐνταῦϑα γενομένους, μισϑὸν εὐχαριστίας δικαΐ- 

3 Pedagog. Lib. 111. sub fine, p. 811. ας, κατάλληλον ἀστεῖου παιδαγωγίας αἶνον 
The concluding words are, ἐπεὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν ἀναπέμψαι Κυρίῳ. 


Sec. 1. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 


411 


individuals was brought into contact with the question of the Divine 
decrees, that solution of the difficulty, since called Arminian, was 
generally adopted. 

Origen, the pupil of Clement of Alexandria, himself the greatest 
speculator of early times, and the great maintainer of the freedom 
of the will, adopted it in its fullest and most definite form. He 
expressly says, that God, who foresees all things, no more causes 
man’s sins, nor forces his obedience, than one who looks at a per- 
son walking in a slippery place is the cause that he should stum- 
ble! Such was the progress of opinion among the early Chris- 
tians, and so general was the spread of the foreknowledge theory 
in the third and fourth centuries, that our great Bishop Andrewes 
considered almost all the fathers to have believed in a foreseen 
faith, ‘* which,”’ he adds, ‘‘ even Beza confesses ;’’? and Hooker, 
himself an illustrious disciple of St. Augustine, says that ‘ all the 
ancient fathers of the Church of Christ have evermore with uni- 
form consent agreed that reprobation presupposeth foreseen sin as 
a most just cause, whereupon it groundeth itself.” ὃ 

So much was this the case, that even St. Augustine himself, 
when first entering upon the question of predestination, taught 
that it was contingent on God’s foreknowledge of the faith or un- 
belief of individuals. But his farther progress in the Pelagian 
controversy, where he had to contend against those who grievously 
abused the doctrine of man’s free will, led him to reconsider the 
questions concerning the grace of God and His predestination and 
purpose. Indeed he asserts, and that truly, that, before the Pela- 
gian controversy, he had written concerning free will almost as if 
he had been disputing against Pelagians.’ But his statements con- 
cerning God’s foreknowledge, as antecedent to his predestination, 
he absolutely retracts.6 Thenceforth his belief appears to have been, 


1 Ὥσπερ εἴ τις ὁρῶν twa διὰ μὲν ἀμαϑίαν 
προπετῆ διὰ δὲ τὴν προπέτειαν ἀναλογίστως 
ἐπιβαίνοντα ὁδοῦ ὀλισϑῆρας, καὶ καταλάβοι 
πεπεῖσϑαι ὀλισϑῆσαντα, οὐχὶ αἴτιος τοῦ ὀλί- 
σϑου ἐκείνῳ γίνεται" οὕτω νοητέον τὸν Θεὸν 
προεωρακότα ὁποῖος ἔσται ἕκαστος, καὶ τὰς 
αἰτίας τοῦ τοιοῦτον αὐτὸν ἔσεσϑαι καϑορᾷν 
καὶ ὅτι ἁμαρτῆσεται τάδε γινώσκει, καὶ κατορ- 
ϑώσει τάδε" καὶ εἰ χρὴ λέγειν οὐ τὴν πρό- 
γνωσιν αἰτίαν τῶν γινομένων " ob γὰρ ἐφά- 
πτεται τοῦ προεγνωσμένου ἁμαρτησομένου 6 
Θεὸς, ὅταν ἁμαρτάνῃ " ἀλλὰ παραδοξότερον 
μὲν, ἀληϑὲς δὲ ἐροῦμεν, τὸ ἐσόμενον αἴτιον 
τοῦ τοιώνδε εἷναι τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ πρόγνωσιν " 
οὐ γάρ, ἐπεὶ ἔγνωσται, γίνεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ γίνε- 
σϑαι ἔμελλεν, ἔγνωσται. ---- Origen. Philocal. 
6. XXIII. ; 

2 Andrewes, Judgment of the Lambeth 
Articles. 


3 Answer to a letter of certain English 
Protestants. 

4 “ Respondemus, prescientia Dei fac- 
tum esse, qua novit etiam de nondum 
natis, qualis quisque futurus sit. . . Non 
ergo elegit Deus opera cujusquam in 
prescientia, que ipse daturus, sed fidem 
elegit in preescientia: ut quem sibi eredi- 
turum esse prescivit, ipsum elegerit cui 
Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona ope- 
rando etiam vitam e#ternam consequere- 
tur.” — Proposit. Ex. Epist. ad Romanos 
Expositio. Tom. 111. pars 2, 916. 

> Retractationum, Lib. 1. cap. 1x. Tom. 
1. p. 15. 

® “Ttem disputans quid elegerit Deus 
in nondum nato. . hoe perduxi 
ratiocinationem, ut dicerem, Von ergo 
elegit Deus opera cujusquam in prescientia, 


412 


that Adam fell freely,! that, all mankind being born in sin, God’s 
inscrutable wisdom and mercy, for good reasons, but reasons un- 
known to us, determined to rescue some from sin and damnation.” 
Accordingly, He prepared His Church, and predestinated some to 
be brought into the Church by baptism, who thereby became par- 
takers of regenerating grace. These, and these only, could be 
saved.® Yet there was a further decree, even concerning the re- 
generate, namely, that some of them should die before committing 
actual sin, and therefore be saved ; but that, of those who grew up 
to maturity, some should be led on by the grace of God to final per- 
severance, and therefore to glory: whereas others, not being gifted 
according to God’s eternal purpose with the grace of perseverance, 
would not persevere at all; or if they persevered for a time, would 
in the end fall away and be lost. It would have been just that all 
should be damned ; it is therefore of free mercy that some should 
be saved.® God therefore graciously frees some, but leaves others 
by just judgment to perdition.6 “Of two infants, both born in 
sin, why one is taken and the other left; of two grown persons, 
why one is called so as to follow the calling, the other, either not 
called, or not called so as to follow the calling; these are in the 
inscrutable decrees of God. And of two godly men, why to one is 
given the grace of perseverance, but to another it is not given, this 
is still more in the inscrutable will of God. Of this, however, all 
the faithful ought to be certain, that one was predestinated, and the 
other not,’ ἄς. The baptized and regenerate may be called of 
the elect, when they believe and are baptized, and live according 
to God; but they are not properly and fully elect, unless it is also 
ordained that they shall persevere and live holily to the end.® 
These statements of St. Augustine gave considerable uneasiness 
to many who agreed with him in his general views of doctrine. 


OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


que ipse daturus est; sed fidem elegit in pre- 
scientia, ut quem sibi crediturum esse pre- 
scivit, ipsum elegerit cui Spiritum Sanctum 
daret, ut bona operando etiam vitam ceternam 
consequeretur: nondum diligentius que- 
siveram, nec adhuc inveneram qualis sit 
electio grate.” — . Lib. 1. cap. 
xxii. Tom. 1. Ὁ. 85. 

1 De Corrept. et Grat. 28, Tom. x. p. 
763. 

2 De Dono Perseverantia, 81, p. 887; 
> Corrept. et Gratia, ἃ 16, Tom. x. p. 

58 


8 De Dono Perseverantie, 28, Tom. x. p. 
882. 

* Ibid. § 1, Tom. x. pp. 821, 822: § 2, 
p. 823 i § 21, Ρ. 831; §§ 82, 88, p. 888. 

5 De Natura et Gratia, cap. v. Tom. x. 
Ρ. 129. 


6 De Dono Perseverantie, § 35; Tom. x. 

. 889. 
7 7 De Dono Perseverantia, ὃ 21, Tom. x. 
p. 881 : “ De duobus autem parvulis orig- 
inali peccato pariter obstrictis, cur iste 
assumatur, ille relinquatur; et ex duo- 
bus etate jam grandibus, cur iste ita 
vocetur, ut vocantem sequatur; ille au- 
tem aut non vocetur, aut non ita vocetur 
inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei. Ex duo- 
bus autem piis, cur huic donetur persev- 
erantia usque in finem, illi non donetur 
inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei. Tlud 
tamen fidelibus debet esse certissimum, 
hunc esse ex predestinatis, illum nor 
esse.” 

8 De Correptione et Gratia, § 16, T ym. 
x. p. 768. 


Ste. [1 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 418 
The members of the monastery of Adrumetum were especially 
troubled by these discussions.!. In consequence, St. Augustine 
wrote his treatises De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, and De Correptione 
et Gratia. Ina short time, the clergy of Marseilles doubting the 
soundness of St. Augustine’s view, Prosper and Hilary? wrote 
letters to him, stating the scruples of the Gallican clergy, thanking 
him in general for his defence of the truth, but saying that hitherto 
the Catholic faith had been defended, without recourse to such a 
theory of predestination.2 The Gallican clergy state, that their 
own belief had hitherto been that God’s predestination was founded 
on prevision of faith.* 

Of these Massilians there appear to have been two parties, one 
infected with Semi-Pelagian errors, the other sound and catholic.® 
Both, however, agreed in being startled and displeased with the 
doctrmes of St. Augustine, and in esteeming them new and un- 
heard of. Among those who were thus dissatisfied, Prosper men- 
tions Hilary of Arles,®a bishop of the first learning and piety of 
that age. 

In answer to these letters Augustine wrote his two treatises, 
De Preedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantie. He 
acknowledges, as in his book of Retractations, that he now saw 
more clearly than formerly ;7 yet he says that he had implicitly 
taught the same doctrines before, but heresies bring out more 
clearly the truth. He also says, the earlier fathers did not write 
much on these doctrines, because they had no Pelagius to write: 
against.? Still he thinks that he can find support from passages 
in St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Ambrose. From 
St. Cyprian he quotes, ‘“‘ We must glory in nothing, as we have 
nothing of our own.” !° And again he refers to St. Cyprian’s in- 
terpretation of the petition in the Lord’s prayer, ““ Hallowed be 
thy Name,” as meaning, that we pray that His name may be 


1 See the correspondence of Augustine 
with Valentinus. — August. Opp. Tom. 
11. pp. 791-799. 

2 Generally supposed to be the Bishop 
of Arles, though the Benedictine editor 
gives good reasons for thinking it may 
have been another person of the same 
name. 

3 « Quid opus fuit hujuscemodi dispu- 
tationis incerto tot minus intelligentium 
corda turbari? Neque enim minus utili- 
ter sine hac definitione, aiunt, tot annis, 
a tot tractatoribus, tot precedentibus li- 
bris et tuis et aliorum, cum contra alios, 
tum maxime contra Pelagianos, Cathol- 
icam fidem fuisse defensam.” — Fpist. 


Hilar. ὃ 8; Aug. Opp. Tom. x. p. 787. 
See also De Dono Persev. § 52, Tom. x. 


p. 850. 

4 Ibid. § 4. 

5 Epist. Prosper. § 3; Aug. Op. Tom. 
x. p. 779; De Predestinat. § 2, p. 791. 

6 Epist. Prosper. § 9, p. 878. 

1 De Predestin. § 7, Tom. x. p. 798. 
Ps De Dono Persever. § 53, Tom. x. p. 

9 De Predestin. § 27, p. 808. 

“Tn nullo gloriandum, quando nos- 
trum nihil sit.” — Cypr. Ad Quirinum, 
Lib. 111. Cap. 4; August. De Pradest. 8 
7, Tom. x. p. 758; De Dono Persever. § 36, 
Ρ. 841; § 48, p. 848. 


41: 


sanctified in us. And this he further explains to signify that we 
pray that we, who have been sanctified in baptism, may persevere 
in that which we have begun.’ Hence St. Augustine concludes 
that Cyprian held the doctrine of perseverance in the Augustinian 
sense of that doctrine. 

From Gregory Nazianzen he cites an exhortation to confess the 
doctrine of the Trinity, which concludes with an expression of 
confident hope, that God, who first gave them to believe, would 
also give them to confess the faith.? 

From Ambrose he alleges two passages. In one, St. Ambrose 
simply argues, that, if a man says he followed Christ because it 
seemed good to himself to do so, he does not deny the will of God, 
for man’s will is prepared by God.* The other passage is as fol- 
lows: “ Learn also, that He would not be received by those not 
converted in simplicity of mind. For if He would, He could from 
indevout have made them devout. Why they received Him not, 
the evangelist has himself related, saying, Because His face was as 
of one going to Jerusalem. For the disciples were desiring to be 
received into Samaria, but those whom God thinks good He calls, 
and whom He wills He makes religious.” 4 

These are the passages alleged by St. Augustine, in proof that 
more ancient fathers than himself held his view of predestination. 
With the exception of the last from St. Ambrose, it will appear to 
most people, that, if St. Augustine had not brought weightier ar- 
guments from Scripture than he did from the fathers, he would 
hardly have succeeded in settling his system so firmly in the minds 
of his followers. The language of the last passage indeed appears, 
at first sight, strongly to resemble the language of St. Austin. 
But it is by no means clear that even this passage does not accord 
with the views of those fathers who held the election of individuals 
to the Church and to baptismal grace, but believed that any farther 
predestination was from foreseen faith ; and it is capable of proof, 


OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Axnr. XVIL 


1 Cyprian, In Dominic. Orat.; August. 
De Dono Persever. § 4, p. 824. 

2 δώσει yap ed olda ὁ τὸ πρῶτον δοὺς, καὶ 
τὸ δεύτερον, καὶ μάλιστα. --- Greg. Nazianz. 
Oratio 44 in Pentecosten. 

“Gregorium addamus et tertium qui 
et credere in Deum, et quod credimus, 
confiteri, Dei donum esse testatur ... . 
Dabit enim, certus sum; qui dedit quod pri- 
mum est, dabit et quod secundum est: qui 
dedit credere, dabit et confiteri.”” — Aug. 
De Dono Persever. 49, p. 849. 

8. “ Quod cum dicit, non negat Deo vi- 
sum: a Deo enim preparatur voluntas 


hominum. Utenim Deus honorificetur 
a sancto, Dei gratia est.’”” — Ambros. 
Comment. in Lucam apud August. Toid. 

* “Simul disce, inquit, quid recipi nol- 
uit a non simplici mente conversis. Nam 
si voluisset, ex indevotis devotos fecisset. 
Cur autem non receperint eum, evange- 
lista ipse commemoravit, dicens, Quia 
facies ejus erat euntis in Jerusalem. Dis- 
cipuli autem recipi intra Samariam 
gestiebant. Sed Deus quos dignatur vo- 
cat, et quem vult religiosum faciet.”” — 
Ambros. Comment. in Lucam, Lib. vit 
apud Augustin. Ibid. 


Sec. 1] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 418 


that such were in fact the views generally held by St. Ambrose.? 
This passage, if fairly interpreted, contains probably no contradic- 
tion of his other statements. 

It is, of course, a question of no small interest, whether St. 
Augustine’s elders in the faith held the same doctrine with himself 
on the predestination of God, or whether he was the first to dis- 
cover it in Scripture. That so learned a divine could find no 
stronger passages in any of their writings than those just mentioned, 
is much like a confession of the difficulty of the proof. His own 
opinions must have great and deserved weight; but if they were 
novel, we can hardly accept them as true. The passages already 
quoted from the earliest fathers are all we have to guide us in 
this question ; for it seems now an admitted fact, that from Ori- 
gen to St. Augustine irrespective individual election to glory was 
unheard of. 

Soon after the correspondence with the Massilian Christians, 
A. Ὁ. 430, St. Augustine died, ‘ without any equal,” says Hooker, 
“in the Church of Christ, from that day to this.’ Prosper fol- 
lowed in the steps of his great master with constancy and success ; 
but he exceeded him in the strength of his predestinarian senti- 
ments: for, whereas Augustine held that the wicked perish from 
their natural sins, being passed over in God’s decree, but not act- 
ually predestinated to damnation, Prosper seems plainly to have 
taught the reprobation of the non-elect.?_ He drew up a book of 
sentences from the writings of St. Augustine ;? and with the aid 
of Celestine and Leo, Bishops of Rome, was successful in oppos- 
ing the Pelagian heresy. 

Not long after, we read of a priest named Lucidus, who, taking 
up Augustine’s predestinarianism, carried it into lengths to which 
Augustine had never gone. Faustus, Bishop of Riez, who him- 
self was inclined to Semi-Pelagianism, succeeded in inducing him 
to recant. A synod was assembled at Arles, a. ἢ. 475, where the 
errors of Lucidus were condemned, and his recantation was re- 


1 See this very successfully shown by 


preescivit, et predestinavit. Non enim 
Faber, Primitive Doctrine of Election, Bk. 


ante predestinavit quam presciret, sed 


1. ch. vir. p. 168, &c. The following 
passage shows clearly, that he held the 
views of Clement and Origen concerning 
God’s prevision of faith as the ground 
of His predestination to glory. In dis- 
cussing Matt. xx. 23, he writes: “ Deni- 
que ad Patrem referens addidit : Quibus 
paratum est, ut ostenderet Patrem quo- 
que non petitionibus deferre solere, sed 
meritis, quia Deus personarum acceptor 
non est. Unde et Apostolus ait, Quos 


quorum merita prescivit, eorum premia 
predestinavit.” — De Fide ad Gratianum, 
Lib. v. cap. 2, sub fine. 

Mr. Faber has clearly shown that else- 
where St. Ambrose maintains the doc- 
trine of ecclesiastical election. 

2 Epist. ad Ruffinum, Cap. x1v.; Ap- 
pend. ad Op. Augustin. Tom. x. p. 168. 

3 See os to Vol. x. of St. Aw 
gustine’s. Works, p. 223, seq. 


416 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


ceived. Some of these errors were, that “ God’s foreknowledge 
depresses men to hell, —that those who perished could not have 
been saved, — that a vessel of dishonour could never become a ves- 
sel of honour, — that Christ did not die for all men, nor wills all 
men to be saved.” } 

In the year 529 was held the second Council of Orange, at 
which Cesarius of Arles presided. Its canons and decrees bear 
the signatures of fourteen bishops, and were approved by Boni- 
face II., Bishop of Rome. They are chiefly directed against the 
errors of the Semi-Pelagians. But to the twenty-five canons on 
this subject there are appended three declarations of doctrine. 
1. That by the grace of baptism al] baptized persons can, if they 
will, be saved. 2. That if any hold that God has predestinated 
any to damnation, they are to be anathematized. 3. That God 
begins in us all good by His grace, thereby leading men to faith 
and baptism, and that, after baptism, by the aid of His grace, we 
ean do His will.? These propositions of the Council of Orange, 
coming immediately after canons against Semi-Pelagianism and 
exaggerated notions of free will, express as nearly as possible a 
belief in Ecclesiastical Election, (ὦ. 6. election to the church and 
to baptismal privileges,) but reject the peculiar doctrines of St. 
Austin. 

Some mention was made of Goteschale in the history of the 
Xth Article.® He was a Benedictine monk of the convent of 
Orbais in the diocese of Soissons, about A. Ὁ. 840. He was a great 
admirer of St. Augustine, and revived his views of predestination ; 
though, like Lucidus, he appears to have gone much beyond his 
master. If we may believe the account of his doctrines given by 
Hinemar, he taught that there was a double predestination, of the 
elect to glory, and of the reprobate to death. God, of His free 
grace, has unchangeably predestinated the elect to life eternal ; but 
the reprobate, who will be condemned by their own demerits, He 
has equally predestinated to eternal death. He taught also, that 
Christ did not die for those who were predestinated to damnation, 
but only for those who were predestinated to life.5 Rabanus 
Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, opposed him with great zeal, and 
summoned a council at Mentz, a. p. 848, which condemned Got- 


1 Cone. Tom. rv. p. 1041. See also ¢ Ασα x Predestin. Cap. 5; 
t. Lo 


Hooker’s Works, edit. Keble, Oxford, Cave, Hist. m. 1. p. 528. 

1886 ; Vol. τι. Appendix, p. 786, notes. 5 Hinemar, Ibid. ec. 27; Cave, Ibid. 
2 Concil. rv. 1666; Appendix to Vol. Archbishop Usher wrote a history of the 

x. of St. Augustine’s Works, p. 167. controversy concerning Goteschale. 


® See above, p. 265. 


Szc. 1] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 


417 


eschale’s opinions, and then sent him to Hinemar, Archbishop 
of Rheims, who assembled a synod at Quiercy, which degraded 
him from the priesthood, obliged him to burn the tract which he 
had delivered to Rabanus Maurus in justification of his doctrines, 
and committed him to prison, where he lay for twenty-one years, 
and then died.! 

The discussions between Thomists and Scotists, among the 
schoolmen, have also been referred to under Art. X.2 The former 
were followers of Thomas Aquinas, who himself followed St. Au- 
gustine. They appear to have held irrespective predestination to 
life ; but to have admitted neither reprobation, partial redemption, 
nor final perseverance, in the sense in which the two former were 
held by Lucidus and Goteschale.® 

We saw, under Article X., how strongly Luther, in his earlier 
writings, spoke of the slavery of the human will, and the necessity 
under which it was constrained.* In the first edition of the Loci 
Theologici, Melancthon held language of the same kind. But in 
the second edition these expressions were all withdrawn; and, as 
we saw in the last Article, Luther, later in life, condemned what 
are called Calvinistic views of election. Archbishop Laurence 
has shown, by abundant and incontrovertible evidence, that after 
the diet of Augsburg, a. Ὁ. 1530, when the famous Lutheran 
Confession was presented to the Emperor, Luther and Melancthon 
entirely abandoned the high views of absolute predestination which 
they had at first adopted. Luther continually exhorted his fol- 
lowers to abstain from all such speculations, and to believe that be- 
cause they were baptized Christians, they were God’s elect, and to 
rest inthe general promises of God.> Luther expressly approved § 
of the later edition of Melancthon’s Loct Theologici, put forth a. Ὁ. 
1535, in which his former views of predestination were retracted.’ 


1 See Cave, as above; and Mosheim, 
Cent. 1x. pt. 11. ch. 111. 

2 See above, p. 266. See also Neander, 
C. A. vit. p. 171. 

8 Archbishop Laurence, in the learned 
notes to his Bampton Lectures, seems to 
contend that none of the schoolmen be- 
lieved in predestination, in the absolute 
and irrespective sense in which St. Au- 
gustine held it. But it seems to me that 
the very passages which he quotes from 
Aquinas prove that he did hold Au- 
gustine’s view of predestination to life, 
though he clearly denied reprobation, 
and the certainty of individual persever- 
ance: 6. g. “Deus habet prescientiam 
etiam de peccatis ; sed predestinatio est 

53 


de bonis salutaribus.”” — Aquin. Exposit. 
in Rom. cap. 8; Laurence, p. 353. See 
also the passages immediately following, 
and the quotations from Aquinas ap. 
Laurence, p. 152; where his view of per- 
severance seems exactly the same as 
that which we have seen above to have 
been St. Augustine’s. 

* Above, p. 267. 

5 See Laurence, Bampton Lectures, 
note 6, to Serm. vir. pp. 855, seg. See 
especially Lutheri Opera, vi. p. 855; 
Laurence, pp. 356, 357. 

6 Preface to Vol. τ. of his Works, 
Wittenb. 1545; Laurence, p. 250. 

7 See Laurence, p. 249; Serm: 11. 
note 16. Serm. vit. note 7. 


418 


He himself speaks of the predestinarian controversies set on foot 
in his own time, as the work of the devil.1_ Melancthon too, in the 
strongest terms, condemned what he called the Stoical and Man- 
ichean rage, and urged all people to fly from such monstrous 
opinions.” 

The doctrine both of Luther and Melancthon, after their first 
change of opinion, appears to have been very nearly that which, 
we have reason to conclude, was the doctrine of the earliest fathers. 
They clearly taught that Christ died for all men, and that God 
willed all to be saved. They held, that all persons brought to 
baptism and to the Church were to be esteemed the elect people of 
God, having been led to baptism by the gracious purpose of God. 
They taught too, that God’s purposes were to be generally con- 
sidered, and His promises generally interpreted, 7. 6. as implying 
His general designs concerning Christians and the human race, 
and as concerning classes of persons, according to their respective 
characters.’ 

Zuinglius was an absolute predestinarian, ascribing all things 
to the purpose and decrees of God; but he materially differed 
from the Calvinist divines who followed him, in holding that God's 
mercies in Christ, though given irrespectively, and from absolute 
predestination, were bestowed not only on Christians, but on infants 
who die without actual sin, and on heathens, who “ had grace to 
live a virtuous life, though ignorant of the Redeemer.” ὁ 

In the Council of Trent, when the question of predestination 
was discussed, no fault was found with the Lutheran statements on 
this head; but several points were found for discussion in the 
writings of the Zuinglians. Many of the Tridentine divines took 
views of predestination similar to those of St. Augustine, though 


OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


See under 


aS ee 


1 Opp. Tom. v. p. 197. 
History of Article xv1. 

2 See his language largely quoted, 
Laurence, pp. 159, 162, 163, 241, 359, 
866, 867, 370. Some of the same pas- 
sages may be seen in Faber, Primitive 
Doctrine of Election, pp. 850, 351, 352. 

8 Luther’s sentiments on universal 
grace are shown by Archbishop Laurence, 
pp- 160, 859. On his and Melancthon’s 
belief in baptismal election see p. 157; 
e.g. “ Quiequid hic factum est, id omne 
propter nos factum, qui in illum credimus, 
et in nomen ejus baptizati, et ad salutem 
destinati, atque electi. sumus.” — Luth. 
Opp. Tom. vit. p. 855; Laurence, p. 


“ De effectu electionis teneamus hanc 
consolationem; Deum, volentem non 


perire totum genus humanum, semper 
propter Filium per misericordiam vo- 
care, trahere et colligere Aer/esiam, et re- 
cipere assentientes, atque ita velle sem- 


per aliquam esse ecclesiam, quam adju- 
vat et salvat.’’ — Melancth. . Theolog. 


De Predest.; Laurence, p. 857. See 
other passages there to the same effect. 
See also Faber, Prim. Doct. of Elertion, 
p. 874, note ; who brings numerous pas- 
sages from Melancthon to prove that he 
held election to baptismal grace. 

* “ Nihil restat, quo minus inter gentes 
quoque Deus sibi deligat, qui observent 
et post fata illi jungantur ; libera est 
enim electio ejus.” — Zuing. pe ey 
"1. pe $18: Ls Faber, Prim. Doct, of Elect 

τῶν 3; Laurence, Serm. v. notes 1, 2 op. 


Sgc. I.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 


419 


these were strongly opposed by the Franciscans. Catarinus pro- 
pounded an opinion much like that afterwards held by Baxter, that 
of Christians, some were immutably elected to glory, others were 
so left that they might or might not be saved. All agreed to con- 
demn the doctrine eorhmonly called Final Perseverance.} 

Calvin, with the love of system and logical precision which! was 
so characteristic of him, rejected every appearance of compromise, 
ex.d every attempt to soften down the severity of the high predes- 
tinarian scheme. Advancing, therefore, far beyond the principles 
of his great master, St. Augustine, he not only taught that all the 
elect are saved by immutable decree, but that the reprobate are 
damned by a like irreversible sentence, a sentence determined con- 
cerning them before the foundation of the world, and utterly irre- 
spective of the foreknowledge of God.2 Nay! God’s foreknowledgé 
of their reprobation and damnation is the result of His having pre- 
destinated it ; not His predestination the result of His foreknowl 
edge. The very fall of Adam was ordained, because God saw 
good that it should be so; though, why he saw good, it is not for 
us to say. Butno doubt He so determined, partly because thereby 
the glory of His Name would be justly set forth.t Those who are 
thus elect to glory, and those only, are called effectually, 7. e. irre- 
sistibly ; whereas the non-elect, or reprobate, have only the exter- 
nal calls of the word and the Church. Those thus effectually 
called, are endued with the grace of final perseverance, so that 
they can never wholly fall away from grace.® 

These views, with little variation, were adopted by the differ- 
ent bodies of Christians which were reformed on the Calvinistic 
model. Sufficient account has been given under Article X. of the 
principal proceedings of the Synod of Dart. The Remonstrants, 
who agreed with Arminius, and against whom that synod directed 
its decrees, had adopted that theory concerning God’s predestina- 
tion which had been current among the fathers from Origen to 


1 Sarpi, p. 197. 


2“ Aliis vita eterna, aliis damnatio 
eterna preordinata.” — Jnstitut. 111. xxi. 
5. ‘‘ Quod ergo Scriptura clare ostendit 
dicimus, zterno et immutabili consilio 
Deum semel constituisse quos olim semel 
assumere vellet in salutem, quos rursum 
exitio devovere. Hoe consilium quoad 
electos in gratuita ejus misericordia fun- 
datum esse asserimus, nullo humane 
dignitatis respectu: quos vero. damna- 
tioni addicit, his justo quidem et irrepre- 


hensibili, sed incomprehensibili ipsius 
judicio, vite aditum precludi. ”"— Thid, 
ΤΠ ΠΕ 7 

8. Institut. 111. xxi. 6. 

* “Lapsus enim primus homo, quia 
Dominus ita expedire censuerat: cur 
censuerit, nos latet. Certum tamen est 
non. aliter censuisse, nisi quia videbat 
nominis sui gloriam inde merito illus- 
trari.”” — Lib. 111. xxiii. 8. 

5 Lib. 111. xxiv. 1, seg. 

δ Lib. 111. xxiv. 6, 7. 


420 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


Augustine.| They taught that God’s predestination resulted from 
His foreknowledge. They ascribed all good in man to the grace 
of the Spirit of God; but they held, that God determined to save 
eternally those who, He foresaw, would persevere in His grace to 
the end, and that He destined to damnation those who, He knew, 
would persevere in their unbelief. These views were rejected and 
condemned by the synod, which distinctly enunciated the five 
points of Calvinism.” 

The disputes on the same subject, which have prevailed in the 
Church of Rome since the Council of Trent, were all sufficently 
alluded to under Article Χ.3 

The doctrine of our own Reformers on this deep question, and 
the meaning of the XVIIth Article, have been much debated. 
The Calvinistic divines of our own communion have unhesitatingly 
claimed the Article as their own; although the earnest desire 
which they showed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to introduce 
the far more express language of the Lambeth Articles, shows 
that they were not fully satisfied with the wording of it. On the 
other hand, the Arminians assert that the seventeenth Article ex- 
actly expresses their own views. The Arminians agree with the 
Calvinists in holding that God, by his secret counsel, hath predes- 
tinated some to life eternal, others to eternal death. They differ 
from them in that, whereas the Calvinists attribute this predestina- 
tion to God’s sovereign, irrespective, and though doubtless just, yet 
apparently arbitrary will, the Arminians attribute it to His eternal 
foreknowledge. Now the Article says nothing concerning the mov- 
img cause of predestination ; and therefore speaks as much the lan- 
guage of Arminius as of Calvin. The latter clauses of the Article 
appear specially designed to guard against the dangers of the Cal- 
vinistic theory, and therefore the former cannot have been intended 
to propound it. Moreover the sentiments concerning election most 
prevalent in the Church before the Reformation were that God 
predestinated to life and death, not according to His absolute will, 
but according as He foresaw future faith or unbelief; and there 
being no ground for supposing that the English reformers had been 
mixed up with any of the predestinarian controversies of Calvin 
and the Swiss reformers, there is every ground, it is said, for sup- 

* Calvin himself owns that Ambrose, Part 1.ch.1v. And for the decrees of 
Origen, and Jerome, held the Arminian Dordrecht on Predestination, see Syloge 
view of election. — Zustitut. 111. xxii. 8. 


Confess. p. 406. 
2 See Mosheim, Cent. xvir. Sect. 11. 8 Above, pp. 269, 270. 
ch. 11. § 11; Heylyn, Histor. Quinguartic. 


Sec. 11 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 421 
posing that the Article ought to be taken in the Arminian, not in 
the Calvinistic sense. : 

In what sense the English reformers really did accept the doc- 
trine of God’s election, and in what sense the X VIIth Article is to 
be interpreted, is truly a question of considerable difficulty. The 
language of Cranmer and Ridley, and of our own Liturgy, Articles 
and Homilies, is remarkably unlike Calvin’s concerning effectual 
calling and final perseverance.! It is also clear, that the English 
Reformers held, and expressed in our formularies, with great clear- 
ness and certainty, the universality of redemption through Christ. 
So that, in three out of five points of Calvinism, Particular Redemp- 
tion, Effectual Calling, and Final Perseverance, the English reform- 
ers were at variance with Calvin. 

Still, no doubt, it is possible that they may have been un-Calvinis- 
tic in all these points, and yet have agreed with St. Augustine on the 
general notion and causation of God’s predestination ; for we have 
seen that Augustine’s views were materially different from Calvin’s. 

It is pretty certain that Calvin’s system had not produced much 
influence, at the time the XVIIth Article was drawn up. It is 
true, the first edition of his Jnstitutes was written early in his ca- 
reer; and that contains strong predestinarian statements. But the 
great discussion on this head at Geneva, and the publication of his 
book De Preedestinatione, did not take place till a. p. 1552, the 
very year in which the Articles were put forth. 

It has moreover been clearly shown, that the earlier Articles 
of the Church of England were drawn up from Lutheran models, 
agreeing remarkably with the language of Melancthon and the Con- 
fession of Augsburg.® Archbishop Laurence has plainly proved 
that the greatest intimacy and confidence existed between Cranmer 
and Melancthon; that for a series of years during the reign of 
Henry VIII. and Edward VI. both the king and the leading re- 
formers were most desirous of bringing Melancthon to England, 
and that nothing but the death of Edward VI. prevented the estab- 
lishment of Melancthon in the chair of divinity at Cambridge, for- 
merly filled by Erasmus and Bucer.* All this must have been 


1 Concerning effectual calling see par- 
ticularly the original xth Article, quoted 
Ῥ. 271; and the whole History of Article 
x. On Final Perseverance, see History 
of Art. xvi. 

2 « The offering of Christ once made 
is that perfect redemption, propitiation, 
and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole 
world,” — Art. xxx1. “God the Son, 
who hath redeemed me and all mankind.” 


— Catechism. “ A full, perfect, and suffi- 
cient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction 
for the sins of the whole world.”— Prayer 
of Consecration at the Holy Commun- 
ion. 

® See Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, 
passim, and the historical sections to sev- 
eral of the foregoing Articles. 
1 See Laurence, Sermon 1. note 8, p. 


422 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


pending at the very time the XVIIth Article was composed. 
‘Nay! there is even some reason to think that Cranmer was in- 
duced to draw up this Article by suggestion of Melancthon, who, 
when consulted by Cranmer (a. D. 1548) on the compilation of a 
public confession on this particular question, wrote recommending 
great caution and moderation, adding that at first the stoical dispu- 
tations about fate were too horrible among the reformers, and in- 
jurious to good discipline ; and urging that Cranmer ‘ should think 
well concerning any such formula of doctrine.” ! 

From such facts it is inferred that the Lutheran, not the Calvin- 
ist reformers, had weight, and were consulted on the drawing up 
of this Article ; and that, as Lutheran models were adopted for the 
former Articles, so, although there is no Article in the Confession 
of Augsburg on predestination, yet the views of that doctrine cur- 
rent among the Lutheran divines were more likely to prevail than 
those among the Calvinists, who had as yet had no influence in 
Great Britain. 

The published writings of Cranmer and Ridley have remarkably 
little which can lead to an understanding of their own views of 
God’s predestination. We hear that Ridley wrote ἃ “ godly and 
comfortable treatise’? on “the matter of God’s election ;”’ but it 
has never yet come to light. In the letter wherein he speaks of 
having prepared some notes on the subject, he says, ‘In these 
matters I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, almost 
none otherwise than the very text doth, as it were, lead me by the 
hand.” ?- 

Cranmer’s writings are, even more than Ridley’s, free from state- 
ments on God’s predestination. But Archbishop Laurence has 
brought several passages from Latimer, Hooper, and other contem- 
poraneous divines of the Church of England, which show that they 
held decidedly anti-Calvinistic sentiments, and which prove that 
even the Calvinism of Bradford was of the most moderate kind.* 

_ If from the writings of the reformers we pass to the formularies 
of the Church, the Liturgy, the Catechism, and the Homilies, we 
shall find that they appear to view the election of God as the choos- 
ing of persons to baptism, the elect as identical with the baptized, 
or, what is the same thing, with the Church of Christ throughout 


1 “ Nimis horride fueruntinitio Stoica 2 Letter to Bradford in the Librar 
disputationes apud nostros de fato, et of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, Rid- 
discipline nocuerunt. Quare te rogo, ut n° Remains, Parker Society’s edition, p. 
de aliqua formula doctrine cogites.”’ ae 
— Melancth. ae Lib. 111. Epist. 44 ; 8 See Laurence, Sermon yi. note 8, 
Laurence, p. 226. p. 889-394. 


Src. 1] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. © 425 


the world. Thus, in the Catechism, every baptized child is taught 
to say, ““ God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect 
peopic of God.” In the Baptismal Service we pray that the child 
“now to be baptized, may receive the fulness of God’s grace, and 
ever remain in the number of His faithful and elect children.” In 
the daily service we pray, ‘“‘ Endue thy ministers with righteousness, 
and make thy chosen people joyful. O Lord, save thy people, and 
bless thine inheritance.” Where God’s inheritance, the Church, 
is evidently the same as His “chosen” or elect “ people,” whom 
we pray that He will bless, save, and make joyful. In the Burial 
Service, we pray God to ““ accomplish the number of His elect, and 
hasten His kingdom, that we, with all those departed,” ὅς. Where 
the we appears to be connected with God’s elect. In the Homily 
of falling from God all Christians are plainly spoken of as the 
‘“‘chosen”’ (i. ὁ. elect) ““ vineyard of God,” which yet by falling 
away may be lost. ‘If we, which are the chosen vineyard of 
God, bring not forth good fruits, that is to say, good works... - 
He will pluck away all defence, and suffer grievous plagues. . . . 
to light upon us. Finally, if these serve not, He will let us lie 
waste, He will give us over... .” &e. 

From all these considerations, it is more probable that an Article 
drawn up by Cranmer should have expounded the doctrine of ec- 
clesiastical or baptismal election, than that it should have contained 
the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius. For both the other documents 
drawn up by himself, and the writings of his great counsellor, Me- 
lancthon, exhibit the clearest evidence of their belief in such eccle- 
siastical election. Add to which, the early fathers, whose writings 
Cranmer most diligently searched, are very full of the same mode 
of explaining the truth. 

The question still remains, after all this historical probability, 
Will the wording of the Article bear this meaning ? or are we ab- 
solutely constrained to give another interpretation to it? Persons 
_ but little acquainted with scholastic disputations and with the lan- 
guage of controversy are apt at first sight to think the X VIIth Ar- 
ticle obviously Calvinistic, though others, somewhat better read, are 
aware that it will equally suit the doctrine of Arminius: but both 
might be inclined to suppose that it could not express the opinions 
of Melancthon and of the majority of the primitive fathers, and 
what, we have seen reason to conclude, were Cranmer’s own opin- 
ions. Let us see whether this is the case. 

In the first place then, the words of the concluding paragraph in 
the Article have been shown to bear so remarkable a resemblance 


424 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVI. 


to the language of Melancthon (language particularly objected to 
by Calvin !), that it could hardly have been accidental. ‘+ Further- 


more,”’ it runs, ‘‘ we must receive God’s promises in such wise as 
they be generally set forth in holy Scripture ; and in our doings 
that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly de- 
clared to us in the word of God.” The word generally is in the 
Latin generaliter, which means not for the most part, but universally 
or generically, i.e. as concerning classes of persons. Now Melanc- 
thon writes, “« And if other things may be nicely disputed concern- 
ing election, yet it is well for godly men to hold that the promise is 
general or universal. Nor ought we to judge otherwise concerning 
the will of God than according to the revealed word, and we ought 
to know what God hath commanded that we may believe,” ? &c. 

But in the beginning of the Article we read of “ predestination 
to life,” and of God’s purpose ““ to deliver from curse and damna- 
tion: expressions which may seem tied to the notion of election 
embraced by Augustine, Calvin, and Arminius, namely, predesti- 
nation to life eternal. It is, however, to be noted, that it would 
quite suit the way of thinking common to those who held ecclesi- 
astical election, to speak of election to baptism as election to life, 
and as deliverance from curse and damnation. For the Church of 
Christ is that body, which, having been purchased by the Blood of 
Christ, is destined to life eternal, and placed in a position of deliy- 
erance from the curse of original sin. Baptism is for the remission 
of sin. All baptized infants have been elected therefore to life, 
and delivered from curse and damnation. The election to life eter- 
nal indeed is mediate, through election to the Church, not imme- 
diate and direct. Every baptized Christian has been chosen out 
of the world to be placed in the Church, in order that he may be 
brought by Christ to everlasting salvation, as a vessel made to 
honour. He may forfeit the blessing afterwards, but it has been 
freely bestowed on him, ΑἸ] persons endued with such an excellent 
benefit of God are called according to His purpose by His Spirit. 
They are freely justified and made Sons of God by adoption (lan- 
guage specially used in the Catechism of baptized children) ; they 
be made like the image of the only-begotten, Jesus Christ, for the 
baptized Christian is said to be regenerate after the likeness of 
Christ. The next step in his course is to walk in good works ; the 
last to attain, by God’s mercy, to everlasting felicity. 


1 See Laurence, p. 180. care quam jurta Verbum revelatum, et scire 

* “Et si alia subtiliter de electione debemus, quod Deus preceperat, ut cre 
disputari fortasse possunt, tamen prodest damus.”’ — Opera, 1v. p. 498; Laurence, 

is tenere quod promissio sit nniversalis. pp. 172, 862, 868. 

ec debemus de voluntate Lei aliter judi- 


Sec. I.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 425 


Such language then, which is the language of the Article, suits 
the baptismal theory as well as the Calvinistic theory ; and it has 
been contended with great force by Archbishop Laurence and Mr. 
Faber, that no other sense can be properly attached to it. 

On the whole, however, it seems worthy of consideration, 
whether the Article was not designedly drawn up in guarded and 
general terms, on purpose to comprehend all persons of tolerably 
sober views. It is hardly likely that Cranmer and his associates 
would have been willing to exclude from subscription those who 
symbolized with the truly admirable St. Angustine, or those who 
held the theory of prevision, so common among those fathers 
whose writings Cranmer had so diligently studied. Nor, again, can 
we imagine that anything would have been put forth markedly 
offennive to Melancthon, whose very thoughts and words seem em- 
bodied in one portion of this Article, as well as in so many of the 
preceding. Therefore, though Cranmer was strong in condemn- 
ing those who made God the author of sin, by saying that He 
enforced the will ; though he firmly maintained that Christ died to 
save all men, and would have all men to be saved ; though he and 
his fellows rejected the Calvinistic tenet of final perseverance ; 
they were yet willing to leave the field fairly open to different 
views of the Divine predestination, and accordingly worded the 
Article in strictly Scriptural language, only guarding carefully and 
piously against the dangers which might befal “carnal and curious 
persons.” After long and serious consideration, I am inclined to 
think this the true state of the case. J am strongly disposed to 
believe that Cranmer’s own opinions were certainly neither Ar- 
minian nor Calvinistic, nor probably even Augustinian ; yet I can 
hardly think that he would have so worded this Article, had he 
intended to declare very decidedly against either explanation of the 
doctrine of election. 

It seems unnecessary to do more than briefly allude to the pain- 
ful controversies to which this fruitful subject gave rise in the 
Church of England, since the Reformation. A sufficient account 
was given, under Article XVI., of the disputes which led to the 
drawing up of the Lambeth Avdcies: which, though accepted by 
Archbishop Whitgift and a majority of the divines at Lambeth, 
never had any ecclesiastical authority. The first four of these 
were designed to express distinctly the Calvinistie doctrines of 
election and reprobation ; though the bishops softened down a few 


of the expressions in Whitaker’s original draught, so as to make 
δά 


426 


them a little less exclusive.1_ The Puritan party at Hampton Court 
wished that these ‘‘ nine assertions orthodoxal” should be added 
to the XX XIX. Articles, and also that some of the expressions in 
the XX XIX. Articles which sounded most against Calvinism 
should be altered or modified; but their wish was not obtained.? 
There have ever since continued different views of the doctrine 
of predestination amongst us, and different interpretations of this 
XVIIth Article. It were indeed much to be wished that such 
differences might cease ; but from the days of St. Augustine to 
this day, they have existed in the universal Church; and we can 
searcely hope to see them utterly subside in our own portion of it. 


OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 





Sxoetron II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


N investigating the Scriptural doccrine of Election, it is of the 
utmost consequence to keep close to Scripture itself, and to 
keep clear of philosophy. The subject of God’s foreknowledge 
and predestination must be full of difficulty, and our question can 


only be, what is revealed to us, not what may be abstract truth. 


1 The Lambeth Articles, after revision 
by the bishops, were as follows : — 

1. Deus, ab eterno, predestinavit 
quosdam ad vitam, quosdam reprobavit 
ad mortem, 

2. Causa movens predestinationis ad 
vitam, non est preevisio fidei aut perseve- 
rantie, aut bonorum operum aut ullius 
rei que insit in personis predestinatis, 
sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei. 

8. Preedestinatorum definitus et certus 
est numerus, qui nec augeri nec minui 
potest. 

4, Qui non sunt predestinati ad sa- 
lutem necessario propter peccata sua 
damnabuntur. 

5. Vera, viva et justificans Fides, et 
Spiritus Dei justificantis non extinguitur, 
non excidit, non evanescit, in electis, aut 
finaliter aut totaliter. 

6. Homo vere fidelis, 7. 6. fide justifi- 
cante prieditus, certus est, Plerophoria 
Fidei, de remissione peccatorum suorum, 
et salute sempiterna sua per Christum. 

7. Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non 
communicatur, non conceditur universis 
pochat qua servari possint, si volu- 
erint. 


8. Nemo potest venire ad Christum, 
nisi datum ei fuerit, et nisi Pater eum 
traxerit. Et omnes homines non trahun- 
tur a Patre, ut veniant ad Filium. 

9. Non est positum in arbitrio aut 
potestate uniuscujusque hominis salvari. 

We saw under Article xv1. the altera- 
tions introduced by the Lambeth Divines 
into Propositions 5 and 6, thereby ma- 
terially modifying the sense. The first 
proposition expresses a general truth, to 
which all assent. In the second Whitaker 
had “ Causa efficiens,” which the bishops 
altered to ‘““movens;” for the moving 
cause of man’s salvation is not in him- 
self, but in God’s mercy through Christ. 
So, instead of the last words in Whita- 
ker’s second Proposition, “ sed sola, et ab- 
soluta, et simpler voluntas Dei,” they put 
‘sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei,” be- 
cause our salvation springs from God’s 
good pleasure and goodness. Yet even 
so modified (and with such modifications 
all their original force was lost) the Arti- 
cles did not approve themselves to the 
ee or the t of our then living 
divines. 


Ὁ Cardwell’s Conferences, pp. 178, seq 


Sec. II] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 427 


The disputes between the Calvinists and Arminians took, unhap- 
pily, a metaphysical, almost more than a Scriptural turn. The 
Calvinists were unable to believe in the contingency of events 
certainly foreknown, and in thé absolute sovereignty of God, if 
limited by His knowledge of the actions of subordinate beings. 
The Arminians, truly contending that an action was not made com- 
pulsory because it was foreseen, held it inconsistent with the justice 
of God to destine some to be saved and others to be lost. Both 
argued from natural religion ; and both gave weighty reasons for 
their inferences. But both should have seen that there was a limit 
to all such investigations, which no human intelligence could pass ; 
and that those very arguments which reduced their adversaries to 
the greatest difficulties, might often, if pursued further, have told 
against themselves. 

It is quite certain that, if we carry out our investigations on such 
subjects to their fullest extent, we must at length reach a point 
which is impassable, but where we are at least as much in difficulty 
and darkness as at any previous step in our course. Thus, why 
God, who is all holy and merciful, ever permitted sin to exist, see- 
ing He could have prevented it; why, when sin came, not only 
into the creation, but into this world, He did not wholly, instead 
of partially, remove its curse and power; why the child derived 
it from its parent; why the unsinning brute creation is involved in 
pain and death, the wages of sin; why, whereas one half of the 
infants who are born die before the age of reason and responsibility, 
yet God does not cause all to die in infancy who, He foresees, will, 
if they live, live wickedly : — these and like questions, which puz- 
zle us as to the omnipotence, the justice, or the goodness of God, 
and which neither Scripture nor philosophy will answer, ought to. 
teach us that it is not designed that we should be satisfied on these 
deep subjects of speculation, concerning which Milton has described 
even angelic beings as lost in inextricable difficulty. 

There is another line of reasoning, which has been taken in this 
controversy, somewhat more bearing on practical questions, and yet 
leading us beyond the reach of human intelligence. The Calvin- 
ist feels deeply that all must be ascribed to the grace of God, and 
nothing to the goodness of man. ‘Therefore, he reasons, all holi- 
ness must come from an absolute decree ; for, if not, why does one 
accept grace, another refuse it? If the grace be not irresistible, 
there must be something meritorious in him who receives, compared 
with him who resists. Both indeed may resist God’s grace; but 
he indeed who resists the least, so as not to quench the Spirit, must 


428 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


be considered as relatively, if not positively, meritorious. The 
Arminian, on the contrary, admitting that merit is not possible for 
man, yet contends that the belief in an irreversible decree takes 
away all human responsibility, makes the mind of man a mere ma- 
chine, and deprives us of all motives for exertion and watchfulness. 
Even these arguments lead us to difficulties which perhaps we can- 
not solve. We are clearly taught to believe, that sinful man can 
deserve no good from God, and derives all he has from Him. 
We are also taught to feel our own responsibility in the use of the 
grace given us, and the necessity of exerting ourselves in the 
strength of that grace. There may be some difficulty in harmoniz- 
ing the two truths; but we have no right to construct a system 
based upon one of them, and to the exclusion of the other. If we 
cannot see, as many think they can, that they form parts of one har- 
monious whole, we must be content to accept them both, without 
trying to reconcile them. 

Now the doctrine of Calvin rests on two premises: 1. That 
election infallibly implies salvation. 2. That election is arbitrary. 
The Arminians admit the first premiss, which is probably false, and 
reject the second, which is probably true. If we would fairly in- 
vestigate the question, we must begin by a determination not to be 
biassed by the use of words, nor to suffer ourselves to be led by a 
train of inductive reasoning. The former is a mistake which pre- 
vails extensively on almost all religious questions, and is utterly sub- 
versive of candour and truth; the latter is altogether inadmissible 
on a subject so deep as that under consideration. 

To begin with the old Testament, a portion of Scripture too 
much neglected in this controversy, we read much there of God’s 
-election: and it is perhaps to be regretted, that our authorized 
translation has used the words choose, chosen, choice, in the old Tes- 
tament, and the words elect and election in the new Testament, 
whereas the original must be the same in both, and the ideas, con- 
tained under both phrases, identical. 

Now who are the persons spoken of in the old Testament as 
God’s elect or chosen people? Plainly the seed of Abraham, the 
children of Israel. Let us then observe, first, the ground of their 
election ; secondly, to what they were elect ? 

It is quite apparent, from innumerable statements of Moses and 
the prophets, that the cause or ground of God’s election of the peo- 
ple of Israel was not, as on the Arminian hypothesis, foreseen faith, 
but God’s good pleasure, springing from motives unknown to us. 
It was not for “ their righteousness, for the uprightness of their 


Sec. ΠῚ OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 429 


heart, that they went in to possess the land.” The Lord did “ not 
give them the good land to possess for their righteousness: for they 
were ἃ stiff-necked people”? (Deut. ix. 5, 6). ‘* Only the Lord 
had a delight in their fathers to love them, and He chose their seed 
after them above all people” (Deut. x. 15). ‘The Lord will not 
forsake His people for His great name’s sake; because it hath 
pleased the Lord to make you His people” (1 Sam. xii. 22). “I 
will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my 
people . . . I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore 
with loving-kindness have I drawn thee” (Jer. xxxi. 1,3). “I 
have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved 
us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother ? saith the Lord; yet I loved 
Jacob, and I hated Esau”’ (Mal. i. 2, 3): a passage, which, as ex- 
plained by St. Paul (Rom. ix. 13), clearly expresses God’s purpose 
to choose the seed of Jacob in preference to that of Esau, irrespec- 
tively of the goodness of the one or the other. 

The Arminian hypothesis, therefore, of foreseen faith is clearly 
inapplicable to the election spoken of in the books of the old Testa- 
ment. The cause and ground of it was plainly God’s absolute irre- 
spective decree. But then to what was the election so often men- 
tioned there? We have discovered its ground; can we discover 
the correct idea to be attached to the action itself? 

It is evident that the whole Jewish nation, and none but they, 
were the objects of God’s election. ‘O children of Israel... . you 
only have I known of all the families of the earth ” (Amos iii. 1, 
2). ‘Thou artan holy people unto the Lorp thy God; the Lorp 
thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above 
all people that are upon the face of the earth”? (Deut. vii. 6). 
‘* The Lorp had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose - 
their seed after them, even you among all people, as it is this day ” 
(Deut. x. 15). ‘* The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His 
peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest 
keep all his commandments: and to make thee high above all na- 
tions which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; 
and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lorp thy God” 
(Deut. xxvi. 18,19). And, “ What one nation in the earth is 
like thy people, like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a peo- 
ple to Himself? . . . For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy peo- 
ple Israel, to be a people unto Thee for ever: and Thou, Lorp, 
art become their God” (2 Sam. vii. 23, 24). “Blessed is the na- 
tion whose God is the Lorn, and the people whom He hath chosen 
for His own inheritance”? (Psal. xxxiii. 12). ‘The Lorp hath 


430 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVII. 


chosen Jacob unto Himself, and Israel for His peculiar treasure ” 
(Psal. exxxv. 4). ‘* Thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I 
have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend . . . I have chosen 
thee and not cast thee away” (Isai. xli. 8,9). ‘ Yet now hear, 
O Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen” (Isai. xliv. 
1). ‘For Jacob, My servant’s sake and Israel Mine elect” (Isai. 
xlv. 4). “Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, 
saying, The two families which the Lord hath chosen, He hath 
even cast them off?” (Jer. xxxiii. 24.) 

All these passages tell exactly the same tale, and explain to us the 
nature and object of God’s election, as propounded under the old 
Testament. Were the Jewish people, who are thus constantly 
called God’s elect, elected to an unfailing and infallible salvation of 
their souls? Most assuredly not. Nay, they were not elected to 
infallible possession even of all the temporal blessings of God’s peo- 
ple. Victory over their enemies, entrance into, in the first place, 
and then quiet possession of, the promised Jand were made contin- 
gent on their obedience to God’s will (see Deut. vii., viii. passim). 
But that to which they were chosen, was to be God’s * peculiar 
people,” —to be “ἃ holy people,” consecrated to the service of 
God,— to have the covenant and the promises, and to be the 
Church of God. Yet still, there was “‘ set before them life and 
death, cursing and blessing: and they were exhorted to “ choose 
life: “that they might dwell in the land which the Lorp sware 
to their fathers” (Deut. xxx. 19, 20). 

We see therefore, first, that the cause of God’s election was ar- 
bitary ; secondly, that the election itself was to blessing indeed, but 
it was the blessing of privilege, not of absolute possession. And 
even of those chosen to be brought out of Egypt, and to become 
God’s people in the wilderness, by abusing their privileges, all but 
two perished before they reached the promised land; and those 
chosen to live in Canaan, as God’s Church and people then on 
earth, were continually provoking God’s indignation, and bringing 
down a curse instead of a blessing upon them. 

The seed of Abraham then, the children of Israel, were the only 
elect people of God at that time upon earth; but their election 
was to the privilege of being God’s Church, the subjects of His 
Theocratic kingdom, the recipients of His grace, and the deposi- 
taries of His truth. This is the whole nature of election, as pro- 
pounded to us in the Law and the Prophets. If there were any fur- 
ther election, and of what nature it may have been, as far as the 
old Testament went, was one of the * secret things, which belong 
to the Lorn our God.” 


Sec. [1.} OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 431 


‘Some people indeed argue, that, if one person or body of persons 
is predestined to light and privilege, and another is debarred from 
them, it is one and the same thing as if one was predestined to sal- 
vation and another to damnation; for, if the one is not certainly 
saved, the other is certainly lost : ind so, if election to glory be not 
taught, reprobation to damnation is. But this is, first of all, an ex- 
ample of that mode of induction which is so objectionable in ques- 
tions of this sort. And next, it remains to be proved, either that 
privilege leads of necessity to salvation, or that absence of privilege 
leads inevitably to damnation. However, it will, no doubt, be gen- 
erally conceded that the Jew was placed in a more favourable state 
for attaining salvation than the Gentile, and that, as we have seen, 
from an arbitrary decree of God. This, it will be said, is as incon- 
sistent with our ideas of justice, as anything in the system of Cal- 
vin or Augustine. Admit this, and you may as well admit all. 
The question, however, still remains the same ; not what men are 
willing to admit, but what the Bible reveals. This election to light 
and privilege is evidently analogous to those cases which we see in 
God’s ordinary Providence: some born rich, others poor; some 
nursed in ignorance, others in full light; some with pious, others 
with ungodly parents ; and now too, some in a Christian, others in 
a heathen land; some with five talents, others with but one. Why 
all this is, we cannot tell; why God is pleased to put some in a 
position where vice seems all but inevitable, others where goodness 
seems almost natural, we know not; nor again, as has been said 
before, why He does not ordain that all who He foresees will be 
wicked, should die in infancy. We know and see, that such is His 
pleasure. The secret motives of His will we are not told, and we 
cannot fathom. We are left to believe that, though hidden from 
us, they must be right. What we are taught is, how to avail our- 
selves of the privileges, whatever they may be, which we have ; to 
escape the dangers, and profit by the advantages of our position. 
This is practical, and this is revealed truth. 

To return to the old Testament. As we have seen, we there 
read much of election ; and it is always election of a certain bedy 
of persons, by an arbitrary decree, to the blessings and privileges 
of being of the Church of God. And we observe another thing, 
namely, that, whereas none but the Israelites were elected to such 
privileges then, there were yet many prophecies of a time when 
other persons, individuals of other nations, should be chosen by 
God, and made partakers of the same privileges with the Jews, — 
the same privileges enhanced and exalted. Nay, the Jews are 


432 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVII. 


threatened, as a body, with rejection from privilege for their sins ; 
a remnant only of them being to be retained in the possession of 
blessing ; and with that remnant, a host from other nations to be 
brought in and associated. 

When we come to the new Testament, we must bear in mind 
that the Apostles were all Jews, but their mission was to proclaim 
that the Jewish Church had passed away, and to bring in, converts 
to the Christian Church. Especially St. Paul had to found a 
Church among the Gentiles, and to bring the Gentiles into the fold 
of Christ. Nothing’ therefore could be more natural, or more in 
accordance with the plan of the Apostles, than, as it were, to apolo- 
gize to the Jews, and to explain to the Gentiles the new condition 
which the Almighty had designed for His Church in the world. 
It would be most natural that they should enlarge upon the truth 
that in God’s eternal counsels there were general purposes of 
mercy for mankind, to be effected by means of bringing persons 
into Christ’s Church, and therein by the graces of His Spirit con- 
forming them to the likeness of His Son; that though hitherto His 
mercy in this respect had been confined to the Jews His further 
plans having been hid for ages and generations, yet now it was re- 
vealed that the Gentiles should with the Jews be fellow-heirs (see 
Col. i. 25, 26, Eph. iii. 5, 6); that, therefore, whereas heretofore 
the seed of Abraham had been the only chosen people of God, 
yet. now the whole Catholic Church, composed of both converted 
Jews and Gentiles, were His chosen people ; and God, who, of 
His good pleasure, for a time elected only the Jews, had, by the 
same good pleasure, now chosen individuals both of Jews and Gen- 
tiles, to be members of His Church and heirs of the grace of life. 
In thus reasoning, it is most natural that the Apostles should con- 
stantly compare the state of Christians with the state of the Jews, 
and so continually use old Testament language, adopting the very 
expressions of Moses and the prophets, and simply applying them 
to the altered condition of the world, and to the enlarged condition 
of the Church. Thus, were the Jews constantly spoken of as a 
holy people, as called and chosen of God? In like manner, St. 
Paul begins scarce any Epistle without calling the Church addressed 
in it either holy, called, or elect (see Rom. i. 6,7 ; 1 Cor. i. 9, 24; 
2 Cor. i. 1; Eph. i..1; Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 2; 1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Thess, 
ii. 18; 2 Tim. i. 8-10; Heb. iii. 1, &c.). Were the Jews spoken 
of as “ἃ peculiar people, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation ” 
(Exod. xix. 5, 6)? St. Peter addresses the Christian Church as 


1 KAnroic, ἁγίοις, not as in our version, “ called to be saints,” but, “ called, holy,” 
as the Syriac. 


Sec. 11. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 433 


“a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people, that 
they should show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out 
of darkness into His marvellous light; which in times past were 
not a people, but now are the people of God.” 1 So too, in his 
very first salutation of the Church, composed as it was of Jewish 
and Gentile converts, he calls them “ὁ strangers or sojourners, scat- 
tered abroad, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the 
Father” (1 Pet. i. 2) ; where, like St. Paul, he no doubt uses this 
expression with special reference to the objection which the Jews 
made to the calling of the Gentiles. They thought that God’s 
plan was only to call the children of Israel. But no! the Apostle 
speaks of the Church (a Gentile as well as a Jewish Church) as 
chosen and preordained, by a foreknown and predestinated counsel 
of God, kept secret hitherto, but now made manifest.? 

This mode of treating the question is nowhere more apparent 
than in the opening of the Epistle to the Ephesians. There St. 
Paul is addressing a Gentile Church. Having first saluted its mem- 
bers, as “the holy persons in Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ 
Jesus,” he at once proceeds to give God thanks for having blessed 
the Christian Church with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus, 
according as He had chosen that Church in Him before the foun- 
dation of the world; the object of such election being, that it 
might be made holy and without blame before him in love ; God 
having predestinated its members to the adoption of children (as 
the Jews had of old been children of God), through Jesus Christ 
to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the 
praise of the glory of His grace (Eph. i. 3-6). He then proceeds 
to speak of the Church’s blessing in having redemption through 
the Blood of Christ, and says, that now God has made known His 
hitherto hidden will, that in the dispensation of the fulness of time 
all things were to be collected together under one Head in Christ, 
both things in heaven and things on earth (vv. 9. 10). And he 
continues, that in Him ‘we (that is, those who have believed from 
among the Jews) have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated 
according to His purpose,” ἄς. ‘In whom ye also (ye Gentile 
Christians) trusted, after that ye heard of the word of truth” (vv. 
11-138).8 


1 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10. St. Peter has here 


2 Comp. 1 Pet. v. 18; where he speaks 
adopted the very words addressed to the 


of the whole Church at Babylon as “elect . 


Jewish people in Exod. xix. 5, 6, xxiii. 
22, as rendered by the LXX. '"Εσεσϑέ μοι 
λαὸς περιούσιος ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν AIvOY .. . 
ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσϑέ μοι βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ 
ἔϑνος ἅγιον. 

δῦ 


together with”’ those churches to whom 
he writes. 

3 The force of the 14th verse is almost 
lost in our translation; its peculiarity 
consisting in its use and adaptation of the . 


484 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL. 


The Apostle next proceeds to give thanks for their conversion and 
faith, and to pray for their further grace and enlightenment (Eph. 
i. 15, 16; ii. 10). He reminds them of their former Gentile state, 
when they were without Christ, and aliens from the commonwealth 
of Israel (ii. 11, 12); and tells them, that now they are brought 
nigh by Christ, who hath broken down the partition wall between 
Jews and Gentiles, and reconciled both Jews and Gentiles to God 
in one body, preaching peace to the Gentiles, who were far off, and 
to the Jews, who were nigh (vv. 18-17). He says, that they are 
therefore now no longer far off from God, but are made fellow-citi- 
zens of the same city, the Church, with the saints, and of the same 
household of God, and are built on the same foundation, and all 
grow together to one holy temple in the Lord (vv. 18-22). All 
this was a mystery, in other ages not made known, but now re- 
vealed to apostles and prophets by the Spirit, namely, that it had 
been part of God’s eternal purpose of mercy that Gentiles should 
be fellow-heirs with Jews, both members of the same body, the 
Church, and partakers of the same promise in Christ by the Gospel 
(iii. 8-6). 

The Churches, which the Apostles thus addressed as elect, and 
on which they impress the blessings and privileges of their election, 
are still treated by them as in a state of probation, and their elec- 
tion is represented, not merely as a source of comfort, but also as 
full of responsibility. Thus, to the Ephesians, of whose election we 
find St. Paul spoke so strongly in the first chapter, he says, “I. 
beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are 
called”? (Ephes. iv. 1). And he thenceforth continues through 
the whole of the remainder of the Epistle, teaching them how to 
live, so as not to forfeit their blessings — not to be * like children 
tossed to and fro” (iv. 14) — not to “ walk henceforth as other 
Gentiles ” (17) —not to grieve the Spirit (80) — not to be partak- 
ers with fornicators and unclean livers, who have no inheritance 
in God’s kingdom (v. 1-7) —to “have no fellowship with the 
unfruitful works of darkness ” (11) — to * walk circumspectly, not 


old Testament language to the Christian 
Church. The words rendered in our 
version, “until the redemption of the 
purchased possession,’ mean more likely 
“with reference to the ransom of God’s 
peculiar people, or, of the people whom 
God hath made His own;”’ εἰς ἀπολύτρω- 
σιν τῆς περιποιήσεως. See Exod. xix. 5, 6; 
xxiii, 22. So the LXX.read Malachi iii. 
17, where it appears prophetic of the 
Gentile Church. Compare the language 
of St. Peter, quoted in the last note but 


one, who calls the Church λαὸς εἰς περι 
ποίησιν. St. Paul, (Acts xx. 28,) speaking 
to the Ephesians, calls them the Church 
of God, ἣν περιεποιῆσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἷμα- 
τος. The expression appears to mean 
“the people whom God made His own,’ 
80 first applied to the Jewish, afterwards 
to the Christian Church. See Schleus- 
ner on this word, Hammond, Rosenmiil- 
ler and Macknight on Ephes. i. 14, and 
on 1 Pet. ii. 9. 


Src. IL] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 435 


as fools, but as wise ” (15) —not to be “drunk with wine, but to 
_ be filled with the Spirit” (18) —to ‘put on the whole armour of 
God, that they might be able to stand against the wiles of the 
devil,” knowing that they had a contest against wicked spirits ; 
that so they might “‘ be able to withstand in the evil day, and havy- 
ing done all, to stand” (vi. 11, 12, 18). 

Just similar is his language to other. Churches. Thus, the 
Philippians, whom he calls “ saints,” he bids to “ work out their 
own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. ii. 12 ; compare iil. 
12-16). The Colossians, whom he. speaks of as having been 
‘translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son,” he bids “to put 
on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” all Christian graces (iii. 
12-17) ; and to avoid all heathen vices (iii. 5-9) ; and that on the 
very principle that they were to consider themselves as brought 
into a new state in Christ (iii. 9,10). The Thessalonians, whom 
he tells that he ‘‘ knows their election of God” (1 Thess. i. 4), he 
warns against sloth and sleep (1 Thess. v. 6), urges them to put 
on Christian armour (v. 8, 9), exhorts them not to ‘quench the 
Spirit” (v. 19). And to Timothy he says of himself, that he 
“endures all things for the elect’s sake ;”’ and that, not because the 
elect are swre of salvation, but in order that ‘ they may also obtain 
the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory ” (2 ‘Tim. 
ii. 10). 

In exactly the same manner, St. Peter, as we have seen, ad- 
dresses those to whom he writes as “" elect,’”’ and whom he calls ὁ 
‘an elect generation,” (1 Pet. i. 2; ii. 9): but he still urges them 
to “abstain from fleshly lusts,” (ii. 11); to “ pass the time of 
their sojourning here in fear,’ (i. 17); to be‘ sober and watch 
unto prayer” (iv. 7); to ‘give diligence to make their calling 
and election sure” (2 Pet. i. 10); to “ beware lest, being led 
away with the error of the wicked, they fall from their own stead- 
fastness ”” (2 Pet. iii. 17). 

All this is in the same spirit and tone. It is, allowing for the 
change of circumstances, just as the prophets addressed the Jews. 
The prophets addressed the Jews, and the apostles addressed Chris- 
tians, as God’s chosen people, as elect, predestinated to the Church, 
to grace, to blessing. But then, they urge their blessings and 
election as motives, not for confidence, but for watchfulness. They 
speak to them as having a conflict to maintain, a race to run; and 
they exhort them not to quench the Spirit, who is aiding them, to 
beware lest they fall from the steadfastness of their faith, to be 
sober and watch to the end. 


436 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


Let us turn next to the Epistle to the Romans. In the ninth 
chapter more especially, St. Paul considers the question of God’s 
rejecting the unbelieving Jews, and calling into His Church a body 
of persons elected from among Jews and Gentiles. The rejection 
of his fellow-countrymen he himself deeply deplores; but there 
was a difficulty and objection arising, which he sets himself directly 
to solve. God has chosen Israel for His people. He had given 
them “an everlasting covenant, even the sure mercies of David.” 
Could then the rejection of the Jews be explained consistently 
with God’s justice, His promises, and His past dealing with His 
people ? Objections of this kind the Apostle replies to. And he 
does so by showing that God’s dealings now were just as they had 
always been of old. Of old He gave the promise to Abraham, but 
afterwards limited it to his seed in Isaac. Then again, though 
Esau and Jacob were both Isaac’s children, He gave the privileges 
of His Church to the descendants of Jacob, not to those of Esau ; 
and that with no reference to Jacob’s goodness ; for the restriction 
of the promise was made before either Jacob or Esau were born ; 
exactly according to those words by Malachi, where God, speaking 
of His calling of the Israelites, says, “" Jacob have I loved, but Esau 
have I hated.” (Rom. ix. 6-13.) This restriction therefore of 
God’s promises, first to Isaac, and then to Jacob, corresponded 
exactly with His purposes now revealed in the Gospel, namely, 
to bring to Christian and Church privileges that portion of the Jews 
who embraced the Gospel, and to cast off the rest who were hard- 
ened in unbelief. From verse 14 to verse 19, St. Paul states an 
objection to this doctrine of God’s election, which he replies to in 
verse 20. The objection he states thus, “‘ Shall we say then that 
there is injustice with God?” For the language of Scripture seems 
to imply that there is, God being represented as saying, “I will 
have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” which shows that it is of 
God’s mercy, and not of man’s will. Again, it is said to Pharaoh, 
‘‘ For this cause have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power 
in thee.” So that it seems to he taught us, that God shows mercy 
on whom He will, and hardens whom He will. It may therefore be 
reasonably said, why does He yet find fault with the sinner; * for 
who hath resisted His will?” (vv. 14-19). This objection to 
God’s justice the Apostle states thus strongly, that he may answer 
it the more fully. His reply is, that such complaints against God 
for electing the Jewish pegple, and placing Pharaoh in an exalted 
station, and bearing long with his wickedness, are presumptuous and 
arrogant. ‘ Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against 


Sec. IL] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 


437 


God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why 
hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay 
to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?” 
(vv. 20, 21).1. Shall man complain because God ordained the Jews 
for a place of eminence in His Church, or raised Pharaoh as king 
of Egypt to a position of honour, and yet a position in which he 
would only the more surely exhibit his wickedness? We know 
not the secret motives of God’s will. What if the real reason of 
all this were, that “ God, willing to manifest His wrath, and to make 
His power known,” as He did with Pharaoh, so now also has en- 
dured with much long-suffering the unbelieving Israelites, who are 
** vessels of wrath”’ already *“ fitted to destruction,” in order ‘ that 
He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of 
mercy, which He had afore prepared for a position of honour, even 
on us, who are that Church of Christ, which He hath now called, 
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (vv. 20-24). 

If we will cast aside preconceived doctrines and conventional 
phraseology, it will surely appear that such is the plain meaning 
of this memorable chapter. The Apostle is explaining the justice 
of God’s dealings, in having long borne with the Jewish race, and 
now casting them off and establishing a Church composed partly 
of the remnant of the Jews, partly of Gentile converts. Herein 
He only acted as He had ever done, calling first the seed of Abra- 
ham His chosen, then the seed of Isaac, elected from the elect, and 
again (elected once more out of them) the seed of Jacob; and as 
He had borne long with Pharaoh’s wickedness, that He might 
make him the more signal monument of His vengeance, so perhaps 
it was with the Jews. He had borne long with them, partly in 


1 See Jer. xviii. 2-10. ‘The scrip- taken; the potter, according to his own 


tural similitude of the potter and the clay 
is often triumphantly appealed to as a 
proof that God has from eternity decreed, 
and what is more, has revealed to us that 
He has so decreed the salvation or per- 
dition of each individual, without any 
other reason assigned than that such is 
His will and pleasure: ‘we are in His 
hands,’ say these predestinarians, ‘as 
clay is in the potter’s, who hath power 
of the same lump to make one vessel to 
honour and another to dishonour,’ not 
observing, in their hasty eagerness to 
seize on every apparent confirmation of 
their system, that this similitude, as far 
as it goes, rather makes against them; 
since the potter never makes any vessel 
for the express purpose of being broken and 
destroyed. This comparison accordingly 
agrees much better with the view here 


arbitrary choice, makes ‘of the same 
Jump one vessel to honour, and another 
to dishonour,’ ἢ. 6., some to nobler and 
some to meaner uses; but all for some 
use ; none with the design that it should 
be cast away and dashed to pieces: even 
so the Almighty, of His own arbitrary 
choice, causes some to be born to wealth 
or rank, others to poverty and obscurity ; 
some in a heathen and others in a Chris- 
tian country ; the advantages and privi- 
leges bestowed on each are various, and, 
as far as we can see, arbitrarily dispensed ; 
the final rewards or punishments depend, 
as we are plainly taught, on the use or 
abuse of these advantages.” — Archbp. 
Whately, Essays on the Writings of St. 
Paul. Essay 111. on Election, an essay 
full of clear and thoughtful statements 
and elucidations. 


488 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


mercy, and partly that He might magnify His power, and show 
the severity of His justice. 

The same subject is kept in view, more or less, throughout the 
two following chapters. In the 11th he again distinctly recurs to 
the bringing of a portion of the Jewish race into the Church of 
Christ, not indeed the whole nation — but restricted again, as it 
once was in Isaac, and afterwards in Jacob. He instances the case 
in which all Israel seemed involved in one common apostasy, and 
yet God told Elias that there were seven thousand men who had 
not bowed the knee to Baal. Even so it was at the time of the 
Gospel. All Israel seemed cast off, but it was not so; a remnant 
remained, a remnant was called into the Church, chosen or elected 
into it by the grace of God. ‘Even so at this present time also 
there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”” Rom. xi. 5. 

We may now proceed to the passage which, even more than 
any of the preceding, may be considered as the stronghold either 
of the Calvinist or the Arminian. Each claims it as unquestion- 
ably his own. The passage is Rom. viii. 29, 30: ““ For whom He 
did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the im- 
age of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many breth- 
ren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called: 
and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justi- 
fied, them He also glorified.” 

The Calvinist contends that the passage plainly speaks of pre- 
destination to eternal glory ; the various clauses showing the prog- 
ress, from the first purpose of God, through calling and justifying, 
to the final salvation of the elect soul. The Arminian replies, that, 
though it is true that the passage speaks of predestination to eter- 
nal glory, yet it is evidently on the ground of foreseen faith ; for it 
begins with the words ‘whom He did foreknow ;” showing that 
His foreknowledge of their acceptance of His grace was the motive 
of His predestination of their glory. That the Arminian has 
scarcely ground for this argument seems clear from the use of this 
word “ foreknew ” in Rom. xi. 2; where “ God hath not cast away 
His people whom He foreknew,” can scarcely mean otherwise than 
‘whom He had predestinated to be His Church of old.” But 
then, though it seems that the passage speaks of an arbitrary pur- 
pose, yet it cannot be proved to have any direct reference to future 
glory. The verbs are all in the past tense, and none in the future, 
and therefore cannot certainly be translated as future. Either 
‘whom He hath justified, them He hath glorified,”! or “ whorn 


1 ode δὲ ἐδικαίωσε, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασε. 


—— & 


Sec. II.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 


489 
He justifies, them He also glorifies,” would correctly render it; 


since the aorist expresses either a past or a present. Hence the 
passage was uniformly understood by the ancients as referring not 
tu future glory of Christians in the world to come, but to that pres- 
ent glorification of the elect, which consists in their participation in 
the high honour and privilege bestowed by God upon His Church. 
And, as they viewed it, so grammatical accuracy will oblige us to 
understand it. And if so, then we must interpret the passage in 
correspondence with the language in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
and in the chapter already considered in the Epistle to the Romans. 
« Those whom God in His eternal counsels chose before the foun- 
dation of the world, His elect people, the Church, He designed to 
bring to great blessings and privileges; namely, conformity to the 
likeness of His Son, calling into His Church, justification, and the 
high honor and glory of being sons of God and heirs of the .king- 
dom of heaven.” 3 

It would exceed our limits, if we were to consider all the pas- 
sages bearing on this doctrine in the Gospels and Acts of the Apos- 
tles. The parable of the vineyard (Matt. xx. 1-16), and of the 
wedding feast (Matt. xxii. 1-14), evidently speak the language 
of ecclesiastical election, the calling of the Jews, and then the elec- 
tion of the halt and maimed heathen from the highways and hedges 
into the Christian Church.’ 

In the Acts, we read of God’s “adding to the Church such as 
should be saved,” (τοὺς σωζομένους, those who were being saved,) 
where the words plainly mean that God brought into His Church 
those whom He chose to the privileges of a state of salvation * 


(Acts i. 47). 


1 See Faber, Prim. Doct. of Election, 
who quotes, from Whitby, Origen, Chrys- 
ostom, Gicumenius, Theodoret, Theoph- 
ylact, pseudo-Ambrosius, and Jerome, 
as concurring in this interpretation of 
“ glorified.” 

2 [have myself little doubt that this 
is the meaning of the passage, divested of 
conventional phraseology, which cramps 
our whole mind in these inquiries. But 
I should wish to guard against dogma- 
tizing too decidedly on such passages. 
I think this passage and one other (John 
vi. 37-39) to be the strongest passages 
in favour of the theory of St. Augustine ; 
and their full weight ought to be given 
them. Some sound and learned divines 
have thought, that the new Testament 
evidently speaks of election to grace, and 
that most of the passages on the subject 


relate to this, but that there are also pas- 
sages which relate to a further election 
out of the elect, to glory. 

8 The words with which these two 
parables end, seem, at first sight, an ex- 
ception to the use of the word e/ect in the 
Scriptures ; namely, ‘‘ Many are called, 
but few chosen : ” πολλοὶ μὲν κλητοὶ, ὀλί- 
you δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. It is, however, merely a 
different application of the same term. 
Many are called to Christian privileges, 
but only those who make a good use of 
them are chosen to salvation. Notwitli- 
standing, then, a different application of 
the word chosen, the principle laid down 
appears to be precisely the same. 

* τοὺς σωζομένους. Dr. Hammond (on 
Luke xiii. 28, and 1 Pet. ii. 6, in which 
he is followed by Lowth on Isaiah i. 9, 
Ezek. vii. 6) considers this expression 


440 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Arr. XVIL 


In Acts xiii. 48, we hear of persons “ believing, as many as 
were ordained to eternal life,” which sounds at first much like the 
doctrine of Calvin. But in the first place, the word here rendered 
ordained, is nowhere else employed in the sense of predestinated ; 
and if it is to be so interpreted here, we must perforce understand 
it as meaning, that they were predestinated to the reception of that 
Gospel which is itself the way to eternal life, and which, if not 
abused, will surely lead to it. Otherwise the passage would 
prove, that all those who heard the Apostles and embraced the 
Gospel and the Church, must have been finally saved; a thing in 
the highest degree improbable, and wholly inconsistent with ex- 
perience.} 

In the Gospel of St. John we have two or three passages, 
supposed to speak markedly the language of Calvinism. 

1. “ All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him 
that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John vi. 37). 

2. ** And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of 
all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should 
raise it up again at the last day ” (John vi. 39). 

8. ‘¢ Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ?” 
(John vi. 70). 

4, ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me: and I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall never 
perish, neither shall any pluck them out of My hand. My Father, 
which gave them Me, is greater than all; and no (man) is able to 
pluck them out of My Father’s hand” (John x. 27-29). 

5. ‘Because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you 
out of the world, therefore the world hateth you ” (John xv. 19). 

6. “Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom 
thou hast. given Me, that they may be one, as We are. While I 
was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy Name: those 
that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but 
the son of perdition ; that the Scripture might be fulfilled”? (John 
xvii. 11, 12). 

Some of these passages, taken by themselves, undoubtedly bear 
a. very Calvinistic. aspect, especially the second and the fourth. 
But if we take them altogether, they explain each other. The 
whole then seems a connected scheme. The Father gives a 
Church of disciples to His Son; who also Himself chooses them 


as synonymous with the “remnant” or the words by Jl, ys οὐὔσι whe 


“ ed Sy, fi - : 
‘ghee ee, ~~ CAE? ee qui salvi fiebant in costu vel ecclesia. 
the old Testament. The Syriac renders ὃ See Hammond on this verse, anc 


Sec. IL] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 441 
from the world. Those that the Father thus gives to the Son, 
assuredly come to Him, and are joined unto his fellowship.’ It 
is not the will of God that any of these should perish. ‘ He 
willeth not the death of a sinner.” ‘It is not the will of the 
Father that one of these little ones should perish.’ Whilst our 
blessed Lord was on earth with His Church, He preserved and 
guarded it by His presence; and when He left it, He prayed 
the Father that He would guard and support His disciples, ““ not 
taking them from the world, but keeping them from the evil” 
(John xvii. 15). The faithfulness of God is pledged to support 
His tempted servants, and His greatness secures them against all 
dangers, and assures them, that none shall be able to take them 
out of Christ’s hands. Yet that their final perseverance and sal- 
vation are not so certainly secured, as that, because they have been 
given to Christ they can never at last be condemned, is evidenced 
by the case of Judas Iscariot, who, in the third and sixth of the 
above passages, is numbered with Christ’s elect,? and with those 
whom the Father had given Him; yet still is mentioned, as one 
who, notwithstanding Christ’s own presence and guidance, had 
fallen away and perished. He, like the rest, had been of Christ’s 
sheep, elect to discipleship and grace ; but, having quenched the 
Spirit, and been unfaithful, he was not chosen to salvation.® 
Whatever then be philosophically true concerning man’s free- 
dom and God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge; the question 
which is practical to us is, How far has God revealed in His word 
the grounds of His dealings with us? If the foregoing investi- 
gation has been fairly conducted, we must conclude, that the reve- 
lation which has been given us concerns His will and purpose 
to gather together in Christ a Church chosen out of the world, and 
that to this Church and to every individual member of it He gives 
the means of salvation. That salvation, if attained, will be wholly 
due to the grace of God, which first chooses the elect soul to the 
blessings of the baptismal covenant, and afterwards endues it with 


also his notes on Luke xiii. 28; 1 Pet. 


ii. 6. 

1 Compare John x. 16: “ Other sheep 
I have, that are not of this fold” (Gen- 
tiles, not Jews): “them also I must bring, 
and they shall hear My voice: and there 
shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” 

2 Compare, “1 speak not of you all; 
I know whom I have chosen,” (mean- 
ing Judas). John xiii. 18. 

3 | cannot see that any force is put 
upon the passages from St. John by the 
explanation and χὴν rca in the text. 

5 


It seems to me that, when all are com- 
pared together, no other sense can be 
attached to them. Yet, as above noted, 
the passages marked 2 and 4, and Rom- 
ans viii. 29, 30, are the passages most 
favourable to the theory of St. Augus- 
tine. And it is so fearful a thing to put 
a strained interpretation on the words 
of Christ, in order to adapt them to a 
system, that I would not willingly err, 
by pressing on others those interpreta- 
tions which seem to me to be undoubtedly 
true. 


442 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Anrr. XVIL 


power to live the life of faith. If, on the other hand, the proffered 
salvation be forfeited, it will be in consequence of the fault and 
wickedness of him that rejects it. Much is said of God’s will, 
that all should be saved, and of Christ’s death as sufficient for all 
men; and we hear of none shut out from salvation, but for their 
own faults and demerits. More than this cannot with certainty 
be inferred from Scripture ; for it appears most probable that what 
we learn there concerns only predestination to grace, there being 
no revelation concerning predestination to glory. . 

The old Testament, our blessed Lord, St. Paul, St. Peter, and 
St. John, and after them the earliest Christian Fathers, seem thus 
in perfect harmony to speak of God’s election of individuals to His 
Church. Of any further election we cannot say that they did 
speak. New and more subtle questions were brought in by phi- 
losophers, like Clement and Origen, which were more fully worked 
out by the powerful intellect of St. Augustine, whose contact with 
philosophic heretics tempted him to philosophic speculations. In 
later times the disputations of the schoolmen still mingled meta- 
physics with theology ; till the acute but over-bold mind of Calvin 
moulded into full proportion a system, which has proved the fertile 
source of discord to all succeeding generations. In the hands of 
the great Genevan divine it was not allowed to be quiet and otiose, 
but became the basis and groundwork of his whole scheme of 
theology. Much of that scheme was sound and admirable; but 
it was so made to bend and square itself to its author’s strong 
view of predestination, that it lost the fair proportions of Catholic 
truth. 

Deep learning and fervent piety have characterized many who 
have widely differed in these points of doctrine. It is well for us, 
disregarding mere human authority and philosophical discussions, 
to strive to attain the simple sense of the Scriptures of God. But 
it is not well, when we have satisfied ourselves, to condemn those 
who may disagree with us; nor, because we see practical dangers 
in certain doctrines, to believe that all who embrace those doctrines 
must of necessity fall into evil, through the dangers which attach 
to them. Discussions on subjects such as this do not, perhaps, so 
much need acuteness and snbtilty, as humility and charity. 


ARTICLE XVIII 


.---.4.-.» 


Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only by the 
Name of Christ. rk 


Tuey also are to be had accursed that 
presume to say, that every man shall be 
saved by the law or sect which he pro- 
fesseth, so that he be diligent to frame 
his life according to that law, and the 
light of nature. For Holy Scripture 
doth set out unto us only the name of 
Jesus Christ, whereby men must be 
saved. 


De speranda eterna salute tantum in nomine 
Christi. 


Sunt et illi anathematizandi, qui dicere 
audent unumquemgue in lege aut secta 
quam profitetur esse servandum, modo 
juxta illam et lumen nature accurate 
vixerit, cum sacre litere tantum Jesu 
Christi nomen predicent, in quo salvos 
fieri homines oporteat. 





Section I. —HISTORY. 


ὦ See early fathers with great unanimity assert, that salvation is 
only to be had through Christ, and in the Church of Christ. 


So Ignatius says, ‘* Let no one be deceived. Even heavenly beings 
and the glory of angels and principalities, visible and invisible, un- 
less they believe in the Blood of Christ, even for them is condem- 
nation.” ! “If any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of 


the bread of God.’’ 2 


Trenzeus says, “ The Church is the entrance to life, all who teach 


otherwise are thieves and robbers.” 2 


“They are not partakers of 


the Spirit who do not come into the Church, but they defraud them- 


selves of life.”’ 4 


Origen says, “ Let no one deceive himself; out of this house, 
ὁ. ὁ. the Church, no one is saved.” ® 

Cyprian, in speaking of the unity of the Church, says, that 
«ς Whoever is separated from the Church is separated from the 


1 Μηδεὶς πλανάσϑω " καὶ τὰ ἐπουράνια, 
καὶ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων, καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ὅρα- 
τοί τε καὶ ἀόρατοι, ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ 
αἷμα Χριστοῦ, κακείνοις κρίσις ἐστίν. --- Ad. 
Smyrn. V1. 

2 ᾽Εὰν un τις ἢ ἐντὸς τοῦ ϑυσιαστηρίου, 
ὑστερεῖται τοῦ ἀρτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. --- Ad. 
Ephes. v. 

3 “Hee (ἢ. 6. ecclesia) est enim vite 
introitus ; omnes autem reliqui fures sunt 
et latrones.” — Adv. Her. 111. 4 


* “ Spiritus; cujus non sunt participes 
omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam, 
sed semetipsos fraudant a vita... . ubi 
enim ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei.”” — Ibid. 
111. 40. See the whole chapter. 

5 “Nemo ergo sibi persuadeat, nemo 
seipsum decipiat; extra hanc domum, 
id est, extra ecclesiam, nemo salvatur.” 
— Homil.in Jesum Nave, 111. num. 5 


444 


promise of the Church ; that if a man have not the Church for his 
mother, he hath not God for his father; and that, as to be saved 
from the deluge it was needful to be in the ark, so to escape now, 
we must be in the Church.” 1 

Lactantius writes that, “if a person have not entered into, or 
have gone out of the Church, he is apart from salvation.”’ 2 

Statements in great number to the same purport might be quoted. 
The necessity of cleaving to Christ, of being baptized, and of be- 
longing to the Church, is much and constantly dwelt upon ; and so 
the rejection of baptism is often spoken of as excluding from life. 

In the Recognitions of Clement, a spurious but still a very early 
work, we find itargued from St. Matthew, that ‘if a person is not 
baptized, not only will he be deprived of Heaven, but will not be 
without danger in the resurrection, however good his life may have 
been.” ὃ 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, ‘* No one can be saved without bap- 
tism except the martyrs.” 4 

St. Gregory Nazianzen held, that infants who die without bap- 
tism ‘ will neither be glorified, nor yet be punished.” 5 

And so the pseudo-Athanasius says, “it is clear that baptized 
children of believers go spotless and as believers into the kingdom. 
But the unbaptized and heathen children neither go to the kingdom 
nor yet to punishment, seeing they have not committed actual 
sin.”’ § 

When the Pelagian controversy had arisen, the question was 
considerably agitated, as to how far it was possible for the unbap- 
tized to be saved. And as the Pelagians underrated baptism, their 
opponents naturally insisted on it more strongly. 

St. Augustine, the great anti-Pelagian champion, denounces, as 


OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION [Arr. XVIIL 


1 “Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus 
adultere jungitur, a promissis ecclesia 
separatur. Nec pervenit ad Christi 
premia, qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. 
Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est. 
Habere jam non potest Deum Patrem, 
qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem. Si 
potuit evadere quisquam qui extra arcam 
Noe fuit, et qui extra ecclesiam foris fue- 
rit, evadet.”” — De Unitate Ecclesie. Oxf. 
1682, p . 109, 

a) vs Sola Catholica ecclesia est que 
verum cultum retinet. Hic est fons veri- 
tatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc tem- 
plum Dei: quo si quis non intraverit, vel 
a quo si quis exierit, a spe vite ac salutis 
sterne alienus est,” — tant. Lib. rv. 
c. 80; see Pearson, On the Creed, p. 850. 

3. gj quis Jesu Baptisma non fuerit 


consecutus, is non solum celorum regno 
fraudabitur, verum et in resurrectione 
mortuorum non absque periculo erit eti- 
amsi bone vite et recte mentis preroga- 
tiva muniatur.” — Coteler. 1. p. 501, ο. 
55 ; 7 also p. 551, ο. 10, 

* εἴ τις μὴ λάβῃ τὸ βάπτισμα, σωτηρίαν 
οὐκ ἔχει πλὴν μόνον μαρτύρων, of καὶ χωρὶς 
τοῦ ὕδατος λαμβάνουσι τὴν βασιλείαν. ---- Cat- 
eches, 111. 7. 

5 τοὺς δὲ μῆτε δοξασϑῆσεσϑαι, μῆτε κολα- 
σϑῆσεσϑαι περὶ τοὺ δικαίου Κριτοῦ, ὡς ἀσφρα- 
γίστους μὲν, ἀπονῆρους δὲ, ἀλλὰ παϑόντας 
μᾶλλον τὴν ζημίαν ἣ ὁρασάντας.--- Oratio χι,. 
Tom. 1. p. 658. Colon. 

ὁ τὰ δὲ ἀβάπτιστα καὶ τὰ ἐϑνικὰ, obre εἰς 
βασιλείαν εἰσέρχονται" ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε πάλιν εἰς 
κόλασιν. ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ émpugav, —Queestio- 
nes ad Antiochum, Quest. ΟΧΊΥ͂. 


Sec. I.] ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST. 


445 


a Pelagian error, the opinion that unbaptized infants could be 
saved. He denies that any can be saved without Baptism and the 
Eucharist.2 The Pelagians seem to have promised to infants un- 
baptized a kind of mean between Heaven and Hell. This Augus- 
tine utterly condemns ;* and he himself positively asserts that no 
one apart from the society of Christ can be saved.* Baptized in- 
fants, he says, at death passed into eternal life, unbaptized into 
death.® 

In the work of the pseudo-Ambrosius, which is generally attrib- 
uted to a writer of the name of Prosper, who is evidently a follower 
of St. Augustine, we read of some infants as regenerate to eternal 
life, others, unregenerate passing to perpetual misery.® 

The earlier fathers, however, though, as we have seen, strongly 
stating that baptism, faith in Christ, union with the Church, are 
the only appointed means of safety, held language far less severe 
than St. Augustine’s on the possibility of salvation to the heathen 
and the unbaptized. Justin Martyr, for instance, appears to have 
had the notion that ancient philosophers received some revelation 
from the Son of God, and so were led to oppose Polytheism.’ 
Similar views must have occurred to Tertullian, who looked on 
Socrates as having some insight into Divine truth;® and thought 
that a kind of inspiration had reached the ancient philosophers.® 
Yet he seems to have believed the heathen generally under the 
dominion of the powers of darkness; and Bishop Kaye thinks his 
opinion of the necessity of baptism must, if he had entertained the 
question at all, have led him to decide against the salvability of the 
heathen. There may, however, exist a strong persuasion of the 
necessity of baptism, without a decided dogmatizing on the condi- 
tion of those to whom it has not been offered; and, in any case, 
on subjects so profound as this, we cannot always insist that any 
author shall be consistent with himself. Clement of Alexandria, 


1 See De Gestis Pelagii, c x1. Tom. x. 
p. 204. 

2 De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, 
Tom. x. p. 15. 

% De Anima et ejus origine, c. 9, Tom. 

348. 

ar Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, 
c. 11, Tom. x. p. 80. 

5 De Dono Perseverantie, ο. 80, 31, 
Tom. x. p. 887. 

8 De Vocatione Gentium, Lib. 1. cap. 7 ; 
Lib. τι. cap. 8. Vossius attributes it to 
Prosper, bishop of Orleans in the sixth 
century, not to Prosper of Aquitaine, 
the disciple of St. Augustine. 

7 Οὐ γὰρ μόνον “Ελλησι διὰ Σωκράτους 


ὑπὸ λόγου (i.e. ratione) ἠλέγχϑη ταῦτα, ἀλ- 
λὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λόγου μορ- 
ὀωϑέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου γενομένου καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ κληϑέντος. ---- Apol. τ. Ὁ. 56. Comp. 
Dial. pp. 218, 220. 

8 « Tdem (Socrates) et quum aliquid 
de veritate sapiebat, deos negans,” &c.— 

polog. c. 46. 

9. “ Taceo de philosophis, quos super- 
bia severitatis et duritia discipline ab 
omni timore securos, nonnullus ‘etiam 
afflatus Veritatis adversus Deos erigit.” 
— Ad Nationes, Lib. 1. c. 10. See Bishop 
Kaye’ s Tertullian, pp. 174, 345. 

See as above, p. 345. 


446 OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION [Ari XVIIL 


whose sympathies were strong with the ancient philosophers, speaks 
of the Law as given to the Jews, and philosophy to the Greeks, 
before the coming of Christ. He considers philosophy as having 
borrowed much from Revelation, and thinks it was capable by 
God’s appointment of justifying those who had no opportunity of 
knowing better.! 

This charitable hope concerning the salvability of the heathen, 
though naturally less entertained by divines who, like Augustine, 
were engaged in opposing Pelagianism, is not confined to the ear- 
liest fathers. St. Chrysostom, in commenting on St. Paul’s argu- 
ment in the second chapter of Romans, verse 29, evidently implies, 
that the religious and virtuous Gentile might have been saved, 
whilst the ungodly Jew would be condemned.? On the contrary, 
St. Augustine, with reférence to the same passage, understood by 
the Gentile which does by nature the things of the Law, not the 
uninstructed heathen, but the Gentile Christian, who does by grace 
the things of the Law.’ ᾿ 

We have seen that Gregory Nazianzen and the pseudo-Athanasius 
believed in an intermediate state between Heaven and hell for 
heathens and infants unbaptized. In this they are followed by 
Pope Innocent III., and some of the schoolmen: and, no doubt, 
out of this arose the belief in a limbus for those children who die 
before baptism and before the commission of actual sin. 

To proceed to the period of the Reformation: the Council of 
Trent anathematizes all who deny that baptism is necessary to sal- 
vation ;* which however is not the same thing as deciding on the 
state of the unbaptized. 

Among the foreign reformers, Zuinglius believed that all infants 
and heathens might partake of God’s mercies in Christ.° Luther 
denies in plain terms remission of sins to any without the Church.® 
But the Lutheran Confessions do not appear to say much on this 
head. Calvin, though appearing to think baptism the only means 
whereby elect infants could be regenerate and so saved, if they 
died,’ yet argues forcibly against such as consign all unbaptized in- 
fants to damnation.’ Still he says of the visible Church, that we 
ogee Ἀ μονὴν "Eidows Lnapeata gogo. 108. Comp. Contra Julionum, Lib. 1¥- 38 
gia, — Strom, τ. Ὁ. 881. φιλοσοφία δὲ ἡ 24, 25, Tom. x. p. 597. 

"Ἑλληνικῆ, οἷον προκαϑαίρει καὶ προεϑίζει τὴν * Sess. vir. Can. v. De Baptismo. 
ψυχὴν εἰς παραδοχὴν miotews. — Strom. ναι. 5 See on this subject under Art. xvu1. 
p. 839. εἰκότως οὖν ᾿Ιουδαίοις μὲν νόμος, 8. Catechismus Major. Op. Tom. v. p. 
Ἕλλησι δὲ φιλοσοφία μέχρι τῆς παρουσίας, 629. 

ἐντεῦϑεν δὲ ἡ κλῆσις ἡ καϑολικὴ εἰς περιούσι- τ Institut. rv. xvi. 17. 


ov δικαιοσύνης λαόν. --- Strom. v1. p. 828. 8 Ibid. rv. xvi. 26. 
* Chrysost. /om. v1. in Epist. ad Rom. 


Src. I.] ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST. 447 


have no entrance into life, unless she, our Mother, conceives us in 
her womb; and without her bosom is no remission of sins or sal- 
vation to eo hoped for.! 

Cranmer’s Catechism was published by him a. p. 1548. Τὺ was 
translated from the Latin of Justus Jonas, a Lutheran divine. 
Sometimes in the translation alterations were introduced by Arch- 
bishop Cranmer, or under his direction, which are peculiarly cal- 
culated to show his own opinions. One strong passage on the 
subject of this Article is translated literally and with all the force 
of the original : ‘ If we should have heathen parents and die without 
baptism, we should be damned everlastingly.”? But another pas- 
sage, which cannot be considered stronger, if so strong, is left out 
in the translation, apparently because Cranmer was unwilling so 
decidedly to dogmatize on this question.’ 

In the first Book of Homilies we read, “If a heathen man 
clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and do such other like works ; 
yet because he doth them not in faith for the honour and love of 
God, they be but dead, vain, and fruitless works to him. Faith it 
is that doth commend the work to God; for, as St. Augustine 
saith, whether thou wilt or no, that work which cometh not of 
faith is nought ; where the faith of Christ is not the foundation, 
there is no good work, what building soever we make.” 

Noel's Catechism is a work: drawn up long after the putting 
forth of the Articles, and therefore not, ahs the writings of 
Cranmer and Ridley or the first Book of Homilies, historically 
calculated to elucidate the Articles; yet from the approbation it 
received in the reign of Elizabeth, it has been looked on as of 
high authority in the Church of England. Its words on this 
subject are: — 

“Μ΄. Is there then no hope of salvation out of the Church ? 

1“ Non alius est in vitam ingressus 


nisi nos ipsa (h. e. visibilis ecclesia) con- 
cipiat in utero, nisi nos pariat, ἕο. Ex- 


neque apud papisticam illam et titulo 
tenus ecclesiam inveniri.” ‘These words 
are omitted in page 125 of the English; 
tra ejus gremium nulla est speranda pec- yet the following words occur in the 
catorum remissio, nec ulla salus.” τοῖν. same page: ‘‘ Without the Church is no 
i. 4. remission of sin.” In the Confutation 


2 Cranmer’s Catechism, Oxford, 1829, 
p. 39 of the Latin, p. 51 of the English. 
See Preface, p. xvi. 

%’ The passage is in the Latin, p. 106. 
“Et ut firmiter credamus has immensas, 
ineffabiles, infinitas opes et thesauros 
veros, primitias regni colorum et vite 
wterne, tantum in ecclesia esse, nusquam 
alibi, neque apud sapientes et philoso- 
phos gentium, neque apud Turcicam 
illam tot millium hominum colluviem, 


of Unwritten Verities (Works, 1v. p 
510) Cranmer says, “To that eternal 
salvation cometh no man but he that 
hath the Head Christ. Yea, and no man 
can have. the Head Christ which is not 
in His Body the Church.” 

* First Part of Homily on Good Works. 
Compare the language of St.. Augustine, 
Contra Julianum, Lib. tv. quoted under 
Art. ΧΙΠΙ. p. 882. 


448 OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION [Arr. XVIIL 


“4. Without it there can be nothing but damnation and death.” 1 

The above-cited passages show, that the English reformers 
strongly held the doctrine that without Christ, without baptism, 
apart from the Church, no salvation is offered to man, and that 
if we reject them, we have no right to look for it. It might even 
seem that they took the strong views of St. Augustine against 
the salvability of the heathen or of infants unbaptized, under any 
circumstances. Yet there are some indications of reluctance to 
assume so decided a position. It has already been observed, that 
it is very possible to assert strongly that no other means of sal- 
vation are offered, that no other hope is held out, without deter- 
mining positively that all who are cut off from the means of 
grace, inevitably perish. Many of the fathers appear to have 
thought this a consistent view of the case. Calvin, as we have 
seen, denied salvation out of the visible Church, and yet would 
not allow that all unbaptized infants perish. And so Cranmer, 
though translating one strong passage from Justus Jonas, has left 
another out of his Catechism, probably because he would not 
pronounce definitely on the state of heathens and persons in 
ignorance. 

As to the wording of the Article itself, it.comes naturally and 
properly between the Article on God’s election of persons into 
His Church, and the Article which defines the Church itself. It 
condemns that latitudinarianism which makes all creeds and all 
communions alike, saying that all men may be saved by their own 
sect, so they shape their lives according to it, and to the law of 
nature. The ground on which it protests against this view of 
matters is, that the Scriptures set forth no other name but Christ’s 
whereby we may be saved. The opinion here condemned therefore 
is, not a charitable hope that persons who have never heard of 
Christ, or who have been bred in ignorance or error, may not be 
inevitably excluded from the benefit of His atonement ; but that 
cold indifference to faith and truth which would rest satisfied and 
leave them in their errors, instead of striving to bring them to 
faith in Christ and to His Body the Church, to which alone the 
promises of the Gospel are made, and to which by actual reve- 
lation God’s mercies are annexed, 


1M. Nullane ergo salutis spes extra damnatio exitium atque interitus esse 
Ecclesiam? A, Extra eam nihil nisi potest.” 


Sue. IL] ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST. 449 


Secrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
oe teaching of the Article will be sufficiently established, if 


we show :— 
I. That Holy Scripture sets out to us only the name of Jesus 
Christ, whereby men may be saved. 
II. That salvation is therefore offered only in the Church. 
III. That accordingly, we have no right to say that men shall 
be saved by their own law or sect, if they be diligent to frame their 
life according to that law and the light of nature. 


I. The first proposition appears from such passages as these, 
‘“* He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that 
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God 
abideth on him” (John iii. 36). ‘ No man cometh unto the Father, 
but by Me” (John xiv. 6). ‘ Other foundation can no man lay 
than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ”? (1 Cor. iii. 11). ‘* There 
is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man 
Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. ii. 5, 6). 
‘“‘ He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but 
also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John ii. 2). “ This is the 
record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in 
His Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not 
the Son of God hath not life” (1 John v.12). Compare Mark 
xvi. 15, 16; John i. 29; iii. 14, 15, 17; v. 40; x. 9; xx. 31; 
Acts xiii. 38; Rom. vii. 24, 25; 2 Cor. v. 18,19; 2 Tim. i. 10; 
Heb. v. 9; xi. 6; xii. 2. ‘Neither is there salvation in any 
other ; for there is none other name under Heaven given among 
men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts iv. 12). “Τὸ Him 
give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever 
believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts x. 48). 
‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” 
(Acts xvi. 80, 31). 


II. The second proposition appears from this ds 


When our Lord had offered the propitiation, by which He 
57 


450 OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION [Arr. XVIII. 


became the Saviour of mankind, He commissioned His Apostles 
to preach the Gospel and to found the Church ; and “ He said unto 
them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every 
creature: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark xvi. 15, 16). 

Accordingly, when St. Peter’s sermon at the feast of Pente- 
cost had produced a wonderful effect on those that heard it, so 
that they cried, “* Men and brethren, what shall we do? then Pe- 
ter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts ii. 37, 38). 
And so, in like manner, whensoever persons were converted to 
the faith, they were at once baptized into the Church. Compare 
Acts viii. 12, 18, 36, 38; ix. 18; x. 47, 48; xvi. 33; xix. 5; 
xxii. 16, &e. 

Hence, St. Peter (1 Pet. iii. 21) speaks of baptism as saving 
us, like the ark of Noah ; for baptism places us within the Church, 
which, like Noah’s ark, is the place of refuge for Christ’s disciples 
in the flood of ungodliness around it. And St. Paul tells us, that, 
** As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ’’ (Gal. 
iii, 27). And as thus baptism, by placing us within the Church, 
puts us in a place of safety, a state of salvation, so it is the 
Church only which is said to be saved. Christ is called ‘ the 
Head of the body the Church”’ (Col. i. 18), and so is said to be 
‘the Saviour of the body” (Ephes. v. 23), of which He is the 
Head. He represents Himself as the Vine, and all members of 
His Church as branches of that Vine ; and then says, “1 am the 
Vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in Me, and I in him, 
the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do 
nothing. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, 
and is withered ” (John xy. 5, 6). 

Again we read, that ““ Christ loved the Church, and gave Him- 
self for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing 
of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a 
glorious Chureh:” &c. (Ephes. v. 25, 26, 27). And accordingly, 
when first God’s grace by the preaching of the Apostles was 
bringing men to Christ, and to the Christian faith, we are told 
that ‘the Lord added unto the Church daily such as were being 
saved ’’ (robs σωζομένους) (Acts ii. 47). 


III. As to believe in Christ, to be baptized into His Name, 
end incorporated into His Church, are the appointed means to 


—— ~~ 


Sec. II] ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST. 451 


salvation ; so to reject Him and continue in unbelief is the way to 
be lost. When the Gospel was to be preached, our Lord promised 
that those who believed so as to be baptized should be saved, or 
placed in a state of salvation; but He added, “ He that believeth 
not shall be damned” (Mark xvi. 16). So He said of those that 
rejected Him, ‘‘ He that believeth not is condemned already, be- 
cause he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten 
Son of God; and this is the condemnation, that light is come into 
the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their 
deeds were evil’? (John iii. 18, 19). ‘He that rejecteth Me, and 
receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him; the word 
that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day” 
(John xii. 48). And to St. John He declared that “the unbeliev- 
ing .... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with 
fire and brimstone ” (Rev. xxi. 8). 

It is unnecessary to multiply proofs, that, as there is no salvation 
offered but by Christ and to those who believe and are baptized in 
His Name, so those who reject Him shall be rejected; and that 
therefore we cannot hold out the hope of salvation to those who 
adhere to another sect or law, as though they might be saved by 
that, if only they lived up to its requirements. If it were neces- 
sary to add more, we might refer to those passages in which it is 
declared that, after the Gospel was come, the Law of Moses, being 
done away, could never give salvation to those who lived under it, 
(see Rom. 111. 9, 23; ix. 31, 82; Gal. 11. 16, 21; iti. 21, 22; v. 2, 
4, ἄς.) If the Law of Moses could not justify, a law which did 
come from God; much less can we believe that any other creed, 
of man’s device, could be safe for any to abide in. 

The question concerning the salvability of the heathen need 
hardly be discussed. It is quite certain that Scripture says very 
little about them. Its words concern and are addressed to those 
who can hear and read them, not to those who hear them not. 
The fact appears to be, that no religion but Christ’s, no society but 
His Church, is set forth as the means of our salvation. Those ~ 
who have these means proposed to them, and wilfully reject them, 
must expect to be rejected by Christ. Whether there be any 
mercy in store for those who, nursed in ignorance, have not had 
the offer of this salvation, has been a question; and it is not an- 
swered in this Article. If we have some hope that they may be 
saved, still we must certainly conclude, not that their own law or 
sect will save them, but that Christ, who tasted death for every man, 


452 


OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION. [Arr. XVIIL 


and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, may have 
mercy on them, even though they knew Him not.! 


1 Passages, such as Psalm ix. 17, “‘ The 
wicked shall be turned into hell, and all 
the nations that forget God,” are brought 
forward as proving that all heathen na- 
tions shall be damned. Yet hell in this 
ease is Hades, not Gehenna; and on the 
other hand, Rom. ii. 11-16, Acts xvii. 
26, 27, 80, appear to prove that it is not 
impossible heathens may be capable of 
salvation. No doubt the reason why so 
little is said about them is, that it is im- 


possible that what is said can reach them. _ 


“T hold it to be a most certain rule’ 
of interpreting Scripture that it never 
speaks of persons, when there is a physi- 
cal impor of its speaking to them. 
....80 the heathen, who died before 
the word was spoken, and in whose land 
it was never preached, are dead to the 
word ; it concerns them not at all; but, 
the moment it can reach them, it is 
theirs, and for them.”—Dr. Arnold’s 


Life and Correspondence, Letter txv. 


_—o" + = co ae 


ARTICLE XIX. 


—e— 


Of the Church. 


The visible Church of Christ is a con- 
gregation of faithful men, in the which 
the pure word of God is preached, and 
the Sacraments be duly ministered, ac- 
cording to Christ’s ordinance in all those 
things that of necessity are requisite to 
the same. 

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alex- 
andria, and Antioch, have erred, so also, 
the Church of Rome hath erred, not 


De Ecclesia. 


Ecclesia Christi visibilis est ccetus fide- 
lium, in quo verbum Dei purum predica- 
tur, et Sacramenta quoad ea que neces- 
sario exiguntur juxta Christi institutum 
recte administrantur. Sicut erravit Ec- 
clesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, et 
Antiochena ; ita et erravit Ecclesia Ro- 
mana, non solum quoad agenda, et cere- 
moniarum ritus, verum in his etiam qux 
credenda sunt. 


only in their living and manner of cere- 
monies, but also in matters of faith. 





Section I.— HISTORY. 


Ἄν speaking of God’s election, probably meaning thereby 

election to the blessings of His Church ; after declaring that 
the promise of salvation is not to be held out to all persons of all 
sects and religions ; the Articles proceed to define the Church it- 
self, into which God predestinates individuals to be brought, and 
which is appointed as the earthly home of those who embrace the 
Gospel and would be saved. 

A distinct definition was naturally called for at the Reformation, 
when great schisms were likely to arise, and when the Church of 
Rome claimed to be the only true Church of God, and made com- 
munion with the Pope a necessary note of the Church. Such 
distinct definitions we may not always meet with in earlier times. 

Ignatius calls the Church, “the multitude or congregation that 
is in God; "1 says of the three orders of clergy, that “ without 
these there is no Church ;”? and, ““ wheresoever the bishop shall 
appear, there let the multitude also be; as where Jesus Christ is, 
there is the Cathdlic Church.’’? 

Justin Martyr identifies the Church with those called Chris- 


1 τὸ ἐν Θεῷ TASC. — Trall. 8. 3 ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοποε, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆϑος 
2 χωρὶς τούτων ἐκκλησία οὐ καλεῖται. ---- ἔστω " ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ἡ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐκεῖ ἡ 
Ibid. 8. καϑολικὴ ἐκκλησία. ---- Smyrn. 8. 


454 OF THE CHURCH. (Arr. XIX. 


tians, partakers of the name of Christ; speaks of it as one syna- 
gogue and one assembly ; and says, it is as the daughter of God.1 

Irenzeus speaks of the Church as consisting of ““ those who have 
received the adoption ; for this is the synagogue of God, which 
God the Son has assembled by Himself.” ? It is the Paradise of 
God planted in the world; and the fruits of the garden are the 
Holy Scriptures.? It is spread, throughout the world, sown by 
Apostles and their followers, holding, from them, the one faith in 
the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, and General Judgment. It 
is one, though universal. Its Head is Christ.6 It is a visible 
body, animated by one Spirit, everywhere preaching one and the 
same faith, one and the same way of salvation.’ The tradition, or 
doctrine of the Apostles is carefully preserved in the Church, and 
the succession of pastors and bishops from the Apostles.6 He 
says, the successors of the first bishops might be enumerated in 
many Churches ; and singles out more particularly the Churches 
of Rome and Smyrna, giving a catalogue of the bishops of Rome 
from St. Peter and St. Paul.® 

Tertullian speaks of the Church as composed of all the Churches 
founded by Apostles, or offsprings of Apostolic Churches, and liv- 
ing in the unity of the same faith and discipline.” 

The Church, according to Clement of Alexandria, is the assem- 
bly of the elect," the congregation of Christian worshippers ; ? the 
devout Christians being, as it were, the spiritual life of the body 
of Christ, the unworthy members being like the carnal part." 

Origen says, the Church is the body of Christ, animated by the 
Son of God, the members being all who believe in Him.* The 


1 "Ort τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύουσιν, ὡς οὖσι 
μιᾷ ψυχῇ καὶ μιᾷ συναγωγῇ, καὶ μιᾷ ἐκκλησίᾳ 
ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς ϑυγατρὶ τῆ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ 
ἐξ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ γενομένῃ, καὶ μετασχούσῃ 
τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ (Χριστιανοὶ γὰρ πάντες 
καλούμεϑα), κ. τ. λ. --- Dial. p. 281. 

2 Her. 111. 6. 

3 v, 20. 

4 1,2 (where the faith of the Church 
is given nearly in the words of the 
Creed) ; v. 20. 

ΦΧ, δι Iie dhe, οὐ, 

; m1. 18; v. 18. ap ee 

τοῦτο τὸ κῆρυ π᾿ via, καὶ ταύ- 
τὴν τὴν πίστιν, pag Biel ἡ ἐκκλησία 
καΐπερ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διεσπαρμένη, ἐπιμε- 
λῶς φυλάσσει, ὡς ἕνα οἶκον οἰκοῦσα, καὶ ὁμοί- 
ὡς πιστεύει τούτοις ὡς μίαν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν 
αὐτὴν ἔχουσα καρδίαν, καὶ συμφώνως ταῦτα 
κηρύσσει, καὶ διδάσκει, καὶ παραδίδωσιν, ὡς ἕν 
στόμα κεκτημένη. — Lib. 1. cap. 8 ; also Lib. 
v. cap. 20. 


; Lib. 111. cap. 8. 
9. Tbid. 


10 De Preescript. Heretic. 20, 21. 

1 Οὐ viv τὸν τόπον ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄϑροισμα τῶν 
ἐκλεκτῶν, ἐκκλησίαν Kado. — Strom. γτι. p. 
846. 

122 τὸ ἄϑροισμα τῶν ταῖς εὐχαῖς ἀνακειμέ- 
νων. “The congregation of those who 
dedicate themselves to prayer.” —— Strom. 
vit. p. 848. 

18 Σῶμα δὲ ἀλληγορεῖται ἡ ἐκκλησία Kupi- 
ov, ὁ πνευματικὸς καὶ ἅγιος χορός " ἐξ ὧν οἱ τὸ 
ὄνομα ἐπικεκλημένοι μόνον, βιοῦντες δὲ οὐ 
κατὰ λόγον, σὰάρκεῖ eloi.— Strom. Vu. p. 
885. 


" ον 7 20 ὅτι Σῶμα Χριστοῦ φασὶν εἶναι 
οἱ ϑεῖοι λόγοι, ὑπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ψυχτνῦ- 
pevov, τὴν πάσαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαν, rf 
δὲ τούτου του Σώματος εἶναι ὡς ὅλου 

ty a πιστεύοντας. ---- Contra — 
VI 


a > eee 


Sxc. 1.7: OF THE CHURCH. 455 
visibility of the Church he expresses by saying that we should 
give no heed to those who say, ‘*‘ There is Christ,’ but show Him 
not in the Church, which is full of brightness from the East to the 
West, and is the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 

Cyprian calls the Church the Mother of all the children of God ; 
compares it to the ark of Noah, in which all, who would be saved, 
should take refuge ; and says that, whilst it puts forth its rays 
through all the world, yet it is but one light.? 

Athanasius we find speaking of Christ as the foundation of the 
Church ;* and of unfaithful Christians as the tares among the 
good seed.* 

Cyril of Jerusalem says, The Church is called Heclesia (assem- 
bly), because it calls out and assembles together all; just as the 
Lord says, ‘¢ Assemble all the congregation to the door of the tab- 
ernacle of witness” (Lev. viii. 3). The Church is called Catholic, 
because it is throughout all the world; because it teaches univer- 
sally all truth ; because it brings all classes of men into subjection 
to godliness ; because it cures all spiritual diseases, and has all sorts 
of spiritual graces. It is distinguished from sects of heretics, as 
the Holy Catholic Church, in which we ought to abide, as having 
been therein baptized.® 

Gregory Nazianzen calls it a Vineyard, into which all are sum- 
moned as to their place of work, as soon as they are brought to 
the faith ; into which, however, they actually enter by baptism.® 

St. Ambrose says, The faith is the foundation of the Church; 
not St. Peter, but St. Peter’s faith; for the Church is like a good 
ship beat against by many waves; but the true faith, on which the 
Church is founded, should prevail against all heresies.” 

As the remains of the great fathers, who flourished late in the 
fourth and early in the fifth century, are far more voluminous than 
those of their predecessors; so also the increase of heresies, and 


1 “Non debemus attendere eis qui 
dicunt, Ecce hic Christus, non autem osten- 
dunt Eum in Ecclesia, que plena est ful- 
gore ab oriente usque ad occidentem, que 
plena est lumine vero, que est columna 
et firmamentum veritatis.” — Comm. in 
Matthe. c. xxiv. See Palmer On the 
Church, τ. pt. 1. ch, 111. 

2 “Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa per 
orbem totum radios suos porrigit, unum 
tamen lumen est. . . . Habere jam non 
potest Deum Patrem, qui ecclesiam non 
habet matrem.: Si potuit evadere quis= 
quai qui extra arcam Noe fuit; et qui 
extra ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadet,” Κα. 
— De Unitate Ecclesiae, pp. 108, 109, Fell. 


5. Contra Arian. 111. p. 444, Colon. 

* De Semente, p. 1064. 

5 Cateches. xvii1. 11, which see at 
length. 

6 Oratio Quadragesima, p. 650, Colon. 

7 “Fides ergo est Ecclesie fundamen- 
tum. Non enim de carne Petri, sed de 
fide dictum est, quia porte mortis ei non 
prevalebunt: sed confessio vincit infer- 
num. Nam cum Ecclesia multis tan- 
quam bona navis fluctibus seepe tundatur, 
adversus omnes hereses debet valere Ee- 
clesiz fundamentum.” — De Incarnationis 
Sacramento, cap. v. 


456 OF THE CHURCH. 


especially the schism of the Donatists, led to their speaking oftener 
and more fully of the Church and its blessings; and this is observ- 
able more in the Latin than in the Greek writers. 

With Chrysostom, the Church is Christ’s Body, and the thought 
of this ought to keep us from sin. And though the Head is above 
all principality and power, yet the body is trampled on by devils 
—so unworthy are members of Christ.1_ This body consists of all 
believers, some honourable, some dishonourable members.? It is 
both one and yet many ; and the regenerating Spirit is given to all 
in baptism.® 

With Rufinus, the true Church is that in which there is one 
faith, one baptism, and a belief in one God, Father, Son, and Spirit ; 
and the Church, thus pure in the faith, is spotless.‘ 

With Jerome and Augustine, the Church is the ark of Noah, 
which St. Peter said was a type of our salvation by baptism. But, 
as there were evil beasts in the ark, so bad Christians in the 
Church. The meaning of Church (Ecclesia) is, according to 
Jerome, congregation.® It is not held together by walls, but by 
the truth of its doctrines. And where the true faith is, there is 
the Church.’ Its head is in Heaven, butits members upon earth.’ 
It is built on prophets and apostles ; and there is no Church with- 
out a priesthood.” 

Augustine says, ‘The Church (Ecclesia) is so named from 
vocation or calling.” It is the New Jerusalem ; * the Robe of 
Christ ; the City of the Great King; the City of God.® It is 
the field of God; in which, however, spring both tares and 
wheat.” It is not only visible, but bright and conspicuous. [ is 
a city set on a hill, which cannot be hid.® It may be as clearly 
known, and as certainly recognized, as was the risen Body of 


(Arr. XIX. 


1 Hom. 111. Jn Epist. ad Ephes. 
2 Hom. x. Jn Ephes. 
8 Hom. xxx. Ἧ 1 Corinth. 


10 “ Ecclesia non autem, qu non habet 
sacerdotes.” — Adv. Lucifer. Tom. tv. p. 
802 


* Expositio in Symbolum Apostol. Art 
Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam. 

5 Hieronym. Adv. Lucifer. Tom. rv. 

. 802; August. Hnarr. in Psalm. xxiv. 
Tom. 1v. p. 131. 

ὁ Comment. Lib. 111. in Proverb. c. xxx. ; 

Ecclesia enim congregatio vocatur. Tom. 
v. p. 590. 
7 “Keclesia non parietibus consistit, 
sed in dogmatum veritate ; Ecclesia ibi 
est, ubi fides vera est.”” — Comm. in Psalm. 
exxxiii. Tom. 11. Append. p. 472. 

8 “ Caput in colo, membra in terra.” 
— Ps. xc. Tom. τι. App. p. 861. 

9. Comment. in Ps. xvii. Tom. 11. Ap- 


pendix, p. 893. 


ll “ Keclesia ex vocatione appellata.” 
In Epist. ad Roman. Inchoata Expositio, 
Tom, 111. pt. 11. p. 925. 

12 De Cwitate Dei, Tom. vir. p. 594. 

18 Tbid. p. 452. 

14 Tid. p. 479. 

15 Ibid. pp. 835, 510. 

 Enarr. in Ps. exxxiv. Tom. rv. p. 
1497. 

1 Serm. xv. de 8 v. Psalm xxv. Tom. 
v. p. 89; Serm. oxx111. In Vigiliis Pasche, 
Tom. v. p. 967. 

18. Enarr. in Psalm. \vii. Tom. tv. p. 
647; Serm. xxxvu. De Proverb. cap. 
xxxi. Tom. v. p. 181. 


OF THE CHURCH. 451 


Christ by St. Thomas.1 The Church below consists of all be- 
lievers; the Church above, of the angels of heaven.2 The 
Church is not all pure and free from stain; the just are mingled 
with the unjust.2 The Church indeed now is washed with water 
by the word (Eph. ν. 26) ; yet not to be “" without spot or wrinkle” 
(Eph. v. 27), till the Resurrection.4 After the Resurrection, the 
bad members shall be taken away, and there shall be none but the 
good.6 No doubt, baptism cleanses those who receive it from all 
sin; but after baptism fresh sins may be committed ; and there- 
fore, from that to the Judgment, there is constant need of remis- 
sion. So essential are the Sacraments to the existence of the 
Church, that Augustine says the Church is formed by the two 
Sacraments, which flowed from the side of Christ, just as Eve was 
formed out of the side of Adam, who was a type of Christ.’ 

It naturally strikes us, that the above and similar statements of 
the fathers concerning the Church are not, for the most part, of 
the nature of logical definitions. They are essentially practical, 
and even devotional in their character. Yet by comparing them 
together, we may find that the very definitions of our own Article 
are implicitly given by them. Thus we have heard their teaching, 
— that the Church is a visible body, capable of being known and 
recognized, — that the very word Church means congregation, — 
that it is a congregation of believers, or of the faithful, —that its 
great support and characteristic is the true faith preserved by it, — 
that baptism admits to it, —that it is essential to its existence to 
have a rightly ordained ministry, who are able to minister the Sac- 
raments, which Sacraments are even spoken of as forming the 
Church.® 

The Creeds do not exactly define, but give titles to distinguish 
the Church. The Apostles’ Creed calls it the Holy Catholic 
Church; and the Constantinopolitan Creed calls it One, Holy, 
Catholic, and Apostolic. Its wnity depends on unity of foundation, 


Sxe. I.] 


1 Enarr. in Ps, exlvii. Tom. tv. p. 1664. 

2 “Keclesia deorsum in omnibus fi- 
delibus, Ecclesia sursum in angelis.’? — 
Enarr, in Psalm. exxxvii. Tom. tv. p. 
1527. 


dubio sacramenta sunt quibus formatur 
Ecclesia, tanquam Eva facta de latere 
dormientis Adam, qui erat forma futuri.” 
— Serm. coxrx. cap. 14, In Vigiliis Pas- 
che, Tom. vy. p. 902. The same idea is 


8 De Civitate Dei, τ. 85; xv111. 48, 49; 
Tom. vir. pp. 80, 531. 

* De Perfectione Justitie, Tom. x. p. 
183 

5 Serm. cou. Jn Diebus Pasch. Tom. 
v. p. 1041. 

6 De Gestis Pelagii, Tom. x. p. 206. 

7 “ Quod latus lancea percussum in 
terra sanguinem et aquam manat; procul 

58 


expressed by St. Chrysostom, Homi/. in 
Johan. 85, Tom. 11. p. 915. See under 
Art. XXyv. 

8 When St. Augustine says that the 
Church is formed by the Sacraments, he 
means that we are first joined to the 
Chureh by baptism, and preserved in 
spiritual life and church-communion by 
the Eucharist. 


458 OF THE CHURCH. _ (Arr. XIX 


unity of faith, unity of baptism, unity of discipline, unity of com- 
munion. Its holiness springs from the presence of Christ, the 
sanctification of the Holy Spirit, the graces conferred upon its 
members by partaking of its Sacraments and living in its commun- 
ion. Its apostolicity results from its being built on the foundation 
of Apostles and Prophets, continuing in the doctrine and fellowship 
of the Apostles, holding the faith of the Apostles, governed and 
ministered to by a clergy deriving their succession from the 
Apostles. 

The designation Catholic, used in all the Creeds and throughout 
the writings of the fathers, originated probably in the universality 
of the Christian Church, as distinguished from the local nationality 
of the Jewish synagogue. The same Christian Church, one in its 
foundation, in its faith, and in its Sacraments, was spread universally 
through all nations. But, as sects and heresies separated by degrees 
from the one universal Church, forming small and distinct commun- 
ions among themselves ; the term Catholic, which at first applied to 
all who embraced the religion of Jesus, was afterwards used to ex- 
press that one holy Church which existed through all the world, 
undivided, and intercommunicating in all its branches, as contra- 
distinguished from heretics and schismatics. . Hence Catholic, in 
one view of the term, became nearly identified with orthodox. 
And so, whilst the one Catholic Church meant the true Church 
throughout the world, yet the true and sound Church in a single 
city would be called the Catholic Church of that city,! its members 
would be called Catholic Christians, and the faith which they held 
in common with the universal Church, was the Catholic faith. 
Accordingly, St. Cyril admonishes his people, that, if ever they 
sojourned in any city, it was not sufficient to inquire for the Church, 
or the Lord’s house ; for Marcionists and Manichees, and all sorts 
of heretics, professed to be of the Church, and called their places 
of assembly the House of the Lord; but they ought to ask, Where 
is the Catholic Church? For this is the peculiar name of the Holy 
Body, the Mother of us all, the Spouse of the Lord Jesus Christ.? 

The unity and catholicity of the Church were imminently per- 
illed by the schism of the East and West, when the entire Latin 
Church ceased to communicate with the entire Eastern Church. 
From that time to this there has been no communion between 
them; though possibly neither branch has utterly rejected the 


1 Thus Constantine writes to the See Athanasii Opera, 1. 772, 778, 779; 
Church of Alexandria: ‘Constantine Colon. Suicer, τι. 14. 
the Great, Augustus, to the people of 2 Cateches. xvit1. 12. 
the Catholic Church of Alexan ? 


— <2 ae 


Sec. 1 OF THE CHURCH. 459 . 


other from a share in the unity of the Church and of the 
faith. 

The gradual corruption in the Western Church perilled still 
further unity and catholicity. The unity of communion was pre- 
served through the West of Europe ; but important points of faith 
and practice were corrupted and impaired. Hence the many pro- 
tests and divisions in Germany, England, and other parts of 
Europe, ending in that great disruption known as the general 
Reformation. 

At that period, some even of those who were sensible of the 
- corruptions, felt that to adhere to the communion of Rome was 
essential, if they would abide in the fellowship of the Apostles and 
the unity of the Catholic Church. Others, as Luther, Melanc- 
thon, Zuinglius, held that sound faith and purity of doctrine were 
more essential to catholicity than undivided communion even with 
the bishops and existing. Church of their own land; arguing that 
a Church could not be Catholic which did not soundly hold the 
Catholic faith, and duly administer the holy Sacraments. Luther 
indeed never wished to separate from the Church, but ever ap- 
pealed to a true general council; and the Confession of Augsburg 
declared that the Lutherans differed in no Article of faith from the 
Catholic Church,” holding that the Churches ought jure divino to 
obey their bishops. Bishops, it is said, might easily retain their 
authority, if they would not command things contrary to good con- 
science. All that was sought was that unjust burdens should not 
be imposed, which were novel, and contrary to the custom of the 
Catholic Church. 

Our own reformers had a less difficult part to play, for though, 
in order to return to primitive purity of faith, they were obliged 
to separate from most of the continental Churches, they were 
themselves, for the most part, the bishops and clergy of the na- 
tional Church ; and there was therefore no internal secession from 
the jurisdiction of the Episcopate, though there was necessary al- 
ienation from the great body of the Church. 

In this unhappy state of things, the Church, which remained in 
communion with Rome, arrogated to itself the name (too. often 
since conceded to it) of the Catholic Church; maintaining, that 
she was the one true Church, from which all others had separated 
off, — that communion with the see of St. Peter was essential to 


1 On this subject consult Palmer, On ὃ Sy/l. p. 157. See also Palmer, 1. pt. 
the Church, τ. pt. 1. ch. rx. sect. 2. 1. ch. xu. $1, p. 861. 

2 Confess. August. a. p. 1681, Art. xxt. 
Sylloge, p. 188. 


. 460 OF THE CHURCH. [Arr. XIX. 


the unity, catholicity, and to the very existence of the Church, and 
that all who were separated from that communion were heretics 
and schismatics. 

This led naturally to definitions of the Church on the part of the 
reforming clergy and the reformed Churches. The VIIth Article 
of the Confession of Augsburg is evidently the origin of the XI Xth 
Article of our own Church. There we find it said, that “ There 
is one Holy Church to abide forever. And the Church is a con- 
gregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught, and the 
Sacraments rightly administered.” } 

Luther, in commenting on the Article in the Creed concerning 
the Holy Catholic Church, says, ‘* Church, or Ecclesia, means prop- 
erly the congregation or communion of Christians ;” and expounds 
that Article of the Creed thus, “1 believe that there is a certain 
congregation and communion of saints on earth, gathered together 
of holy men under one Head, Christ ; collected by the Holy Spirit, 
in one faith and one sentiment, adorned with various gifts, but 
united in love, and accordant in all things, without sects or schism. 
.. .. Moreover, in this Christianity we believe that remission of 
sins is offered, which takes place by means of the Sacraments and 
absolution of the Church.” ? 

Calvin defines the Visible Church as “the multitude of men 
diffused through the world, who profess to worship one God in 
Christ ; are initiated into this faith by baptism; testify their unity 
in true doctrine and charity by participating in the Supper; have 
consent in the Word of God, and for the preaching of that Word 
maintain the ministry ordained of Christ.” ® 

The English reformers have given, in works of authority, some 
definitions of the Visible Church, besides that contained in this 
Article. The second part of the Homily for Whitsunday (set forth 
early in Elizabeth’s reign, therefore, after the Articles of 1552, but 
before the final sanction of the XX XIX. Articles by the Convoca- 
tion of 1562 and 1571) gives the following, as the notes of the 
Church: “The true Church is an universal congregation or fellow- 
ship of God’s faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of 
the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head 
corner-stone, Ephes. ii. And it hath always these notes or marks 
195,00 past Ae ΤῸ P ioce unitatom in vera doctrine oat 

2 Catechismus Major. Opera, Tom. v. tate testatur: consensionem habet in 

628. verbo Domini, atque ad ejus preedicatio- 

8 “ Universalem hominum multitudi- nem ministerium conservat a Christo ἐπ: 


nem in orbe diffusam que unum se Deum stitutum.”” — /nstitut. Lib. 1. 8. 7. 
et Christum colere profitetur; Baptismo 


Sec. 1.1 OF THE CHURCH. 461 


whereby it is known: pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments 
ministered according to Christ’s holy institution, and the right use 
of ecclesiastical discipline.” 

Very similar are the statements of the Catechism of Edward 
VI. a. p. 1558, the year after the first draught of the Articles. 
‘“‘ The marks of the Church are, first, pure preaching of the Gos- 
pel: then brotherly love: thirdly, upright and uncorrupted use 
of the Lord’s Sacraments, according to the ordinance of the Gos- 
pel: last of all, brotherly correction and excommunication, or 
banishing those out of the Church that will not amend themselves. 
This mark the holy fathers termed discipline.” ? 

Noel’s Catechism also enumerates, first, sound doctrine and right 
use of the Sacraments, and then the use of just discipline.” 

Bishop Ridley gave a definition exactly conformable to the 
above: ‘* The holy Catholic or universal Church, which is the com- 
munion of saints, the house of God, the city of God, the spouse of 
God, the body of. Christ, the pillar and stay of the truth; this 
Church I believe, according to the Creed: this Church I do rever- 
ence and honour in the Lord. The marks whereby this Church is 
known unto me in this dark world, and in the midst of this crooked 
and froward generation, are these, — the sincere preaching of God’s 
Word; the due administration of the Sacraments; charity ; and 
faithful observances of ecclesiastical discipline, according to the 
Word of God.” ὃ 

The difference which strikes us between these definitions and 
that of the Article is, that in them there is added to the notes in 
the Article, ‘*the observance of ecclesiastical discipline,” or, as the 
Homily terms it, of “« the ecclesiastical keys.” Now it is probable 
that the compilers of the Articles, who elsewhere made this use of 
the keys one note of the Church, omitted it in the Article itself, as 
considering that it was implied in the due administration of the 
Sacraments. For what is the power of the keys and the observance 
of discipline, but ‘the admission of some to, and the rejection of 
others from, the Sacraments and blessings of the Church? Where, 
therefore, the Sacraments are duly ministered, there too discipline 
must exist.* 


1 Enchirid. Thocologicum, 1. p. 26. 

2 Tbid. 1. p. 276. 

8 Conferences between Nicholas Rid- 
ley and Hugh Latimer, Ridley’s Works, 
Parker Society edition, p. 128. 

+ The definition of the Church by the 
Roman Catholic divines does not ma- 
terially differ from those of the Reform- 
ers, except in one important point. 
Bellarmine gives it as follows: “ Nostra 


sententia est ecclesiam unam tantum 
esse, non duas, et illam unam et veram 
esse coetum hominum ejusdem Christia- 
ne fidei professione et eorundem sacra- 
mentorum communione colligatum, sut 
regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac pre- 
cipue unius Christi in terris Vicarii Roma- 
πὶ pontificis.”” — Controvers. General. Tom, 
1. p. 108, Lib. 111. De Leclesia, ec. 2. 


462 OF THE CHURCH. 


It may be right to say something of the invisible Church. The 
Article says nothing of the invisible Church ; but as it uses the 
term “visible Church,” it implies a contradistinction to something 
invisible. Now “invisible Church” is not a Scriptural term, but a 
term of comparatively late origin ; and there are two different views 
of its meaning. Some persons by it understand the saints departed, 
who, in Paradise or the unseen place (Hades), are no longer mili- 
tant and visible, but form part of the true Church of God, —the 
Church in fact in its purified and beatified conaition, freed from its 
unsound members, and “ without spot or wrinkle, or any such 
thing.” 

Others, however, (and the Reformers were mostly of this opinion, ) 
believed that within the visible Church we might conceive to exist 
a body of true saints, persons not only communicating with the 
outward Church, but, moreover, really sanctified in heart, who not 
only now partook of Church-privileges, but would forever reign 
with Christ. These formed the invisible Church, whom none knew 
but God; whereas the visible Church was composed of faithful and 
unfaithful, of tares and wheat.! 

It is however certain, that the Article confines itself to the con- 
sideration of the visible Church, and gives us no authoritative state- 
ment concerning the invisible Church. And, indeed, the reformers 
themselves vary considerably in their statements on the subject, 
though the sad corruptions in the visible Church in their days led 
them naturally to apply some of the promises in Scripture to a 
secret body, and not to the universal Church. There does not ap- 
pear anything in the Liturgy or formularies of the Church which 
specially alludes to this distinction of the visible and invisible 
Church. ‘The Church spoken of there is the Body of Christ, the 
ark of Christ’s Church, and still the congregation of all who profess 
and call themselves Christians, the congregation of Christian people 
dispersed through the world, built on the foundation of Apostles 
and Prophets, the blessed company of all faithful people, into which 
a child is incorporated by baptism, of fellowship with which the 


(Arr. XIX. 


ognized this distinction, although in St. 


1 Calvin expounds this doctrine at 
Augustine and some others there are fre- 


length, Jnst. Lib. αὐ. cap. i. It may be 


seen in the writings of the English Re- 
formers, e. g. The Institution of a Christian 
Man. See Formularies of Faith in the 
Reign of Henry VIII. p. 52; Edward VI. 
Catechism, Enchir. eol. p. 24; Noel’s 
Catechism, Ibid. p, 272; Cranmer’s 
φ»"» 111. p. 19; Ridley’s Works, p. 


The fathers do not appear to have rec- 


quent and evident allusions to the differ- 
ence of the body of the ΜΌΝ faithful 
and the mere outward communion of the 
Chureh. St. Augustine mentions it as 
an error of the Pelagians, that they looked 
on the Church as composed of perfectly 
holy persons, Heres. 88. And after- 
wards, Calvin attributes the same opin 
ion to the Anabaptists, Znst. ry. i. 18. 


Sec. I.] OF THE CHURCH. | 468 


adult is assured by communion, and for all members of which we 
pray that they may be led into the way of truth, and so walk m 
the light of truth, that at last they may attain to the light of ever- 
lasting life. And so we pray ‘for all estates of men in God’s Holy 
Church, that every member of the same, in his vocation and min- 
istry, may truly and godly serve Him,’’! that is, may be faithful, 
not unworthy members of the Body. 


II. The latter part of the Article concerns the errors of one 
portion of the Church, the Church of Rome. 

The Church of Rome claimed to be the whole Catholic Church. 
Here we declare our belief that she is but one branch or portion 
of the Catholic Church, and that an erring branch, erring not only 
in practice and discipline, but in matters of faith. This is illus- 
trated by reference to the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and 
Alexandria, all of which are said to have erred in doctrine as well 
as discipline ; and, like them, the Church of Rome is said to have 
erred. In what points Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch may 
ve considered as having erred in matters of faith is a question 


which has been mooted by expositors of this Article. 
thinks it was in favouring Arianism and condemning Origen. 


Dr. Hey 
The 


great point on which the Western Church separated from the 


1 Collect for Good Friday. 

The following are the other principal 
expressions in the Liturgy and Prayers 
voncerning the Church : — 

‘** That it may please Thee to rule and 
govern Thy holy Church universal in 
the right way,” &c. (Litany). ‘More 
especially we pray for the good estate of 
the Catholic Church, that it may be so 
guided and governed by Thy good Spirit, 
that all who profess and call themselves 
Christians may be led into the way of 
truth,’ ἄς. (Prayer for all Conditions 
of Men). ‘‘ Who hast purchased to Thy- 
self an universal Church by the precious 
Blood of Thy dear Son. . . . Who of Thy 
Divine Providence hast appointed divers 
orders in Thy Church” (Prayers for 
Ember Weeks). ‘ Merciful Lord, we 
beseech thee to cast Thy bright beams 
of light upon Thy Church, that it being 
enlightened by the doctrine of thy blessed 
Apostle and Evangelist St. John, may so 
walk in the light of Thy truth that it 
may at length attain to the light of ever- 
lasting life ” (Collect for St. John’s day). 
“O Almighty God, who hast knit to- 
gether thine elect in one communion and 
fellowship in the mystical Body of Thy 
Son Christ our Lord” (Collect for All 


Saints). “Ὁ Almighty God, who hast 
built Thy ‘Church upon the foundation 
of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ 
Himself being the head corner-stone” 
(Collect for St. Simon and St. Jude). 
The Prayer “for the whole state of 
Christ’s Church militant here in earth ” 
is a prayer for all states of men, kings 
and councils, bishops and curates, all the 
people in health or sickness. The first 
prayer for the child to be baptized asks, 
“that he, being delivered from Thy 
wrath, may be received into the ark of 
Christ’s Church.” And _ after the bap- 
tism we thank God that He hath ‘incor- 
porated him into His holy Church.” So 
in the Post-Communion we thank God 
for feeding us in the Sacrament, thereby 
assuring us that we are very members 
“incorporate in the mystical Body of 
His Son, which is the blessed company 
of all faithful people.” In the bidding 
prayer ministers are enjoined to move 
the people to join them in prayer in this 
form: ‘ Ye shall pray for Christ’s holy 
Catholic Church, that is, for the whole 
congregation of Christian people dis- 
persed throughout the whole world, and 
especially for the Churches of England, 
Scotland and Ireland,” &c. (Canon 55). 


464 OF THE CHURCH. (Arr. XIX. 


Eastern was the doctrine of the procession of the Third Person 
of the Trinity. It was an acknowledged fact in the West, that on 
this point the Eastern Churches had erred. When therefore the 
Article, writing in condemnation of errors in the Church of Rome, 
speaks first of the errors of the Eastern Churches, perhaps it 
specially alludes to that point in which the Church of Rome would 
hold, in common with the Church of England, that these Churches 
had erred. So the statement would be a kind of argumentum ad 
hominem, a premise sure to be granted. But this part of the Arti- 
cle is directed against Romanist, not against Eastern or Alexan- 
drian errors, which are only introduced obiter. Some might expect 
the Article to have denounced the Church of Rome, not as a 
Church in error, but as the synagogue of Antichrist, an antichris- 
tian assembly, not an erring Church. No doubt, at times, such ie 
the language of the reformers, who, in their strong opposition to 
Romanist errors, often use the most severe terms in denouncing 
them. But in their most sober and guarded language, not only 
our own, but Luther, Calvin, and other continental reformers, 
speak of the Church of Rome as a Church, though a fallen and 
corrupt Church. 

Thus Luther says, “* We call the Church of Rome holy, and 
the bishops’ sees holy, though they be perverted and their bishops 
impious. In Rome, though worse than Sodom and Gomorrha, 
there are still Baptism: and the Sacrament, the Gospel, the Serip- 
ture, the ministry, the name of Christ and God. Therefore the 
Church of Rome is holy.” ‘* Wherever,” he adds, “the Word 
and Sacraments substantially remain, there is the holy Church, 
notwithstanding Antichrist reigns there, who, as Scripture wit- 
nesseth, sits not in a stable of demons or a pigsty, or an assembly 
of infidels, but in the most noble and holy place, even the temple 
of God.” } ' 

Calvin, writing to Lelins Socinus, maintains the validity of 
Popish baptism, and says that he does not deny some remains of 
a Church to the Papists.2 In another epistle to the same he 
writes, “ When I allow some remains of a Church to the Papists, 
I do not confine it to the elect who are dispersed among them; 
but mean, that some ruins of ascattered Church exist there ; which 
is confirmed by St. Paul’s declaration, that Antichrist shall sit in 
the temple of God.” ® 


1 Comment. in Galat. i. 2; Opp. Tom. ὃ “ Quod ecclesiw reliquias manere in 
v. pp. 278, 279. Pe tu dico. non restringo ad electos qui 
Calv. Zozino Epistole, p. 61, Amste- illic dispersi sunt: sed ruinas dissipate 
lod. 1667. ecclesie illic extare intelligo. Ac ne 


i.) ae ιν 


Sec. 1.] OF THE CHURCH. 465 


As to the writings of our reformers, to begin with the reign of 
Henry VIII., the Jnstitution of a Christian Man has, “I do be- 
lieve that the Church of Rome is not, nor cannot worthily be 
called the true Catholic Church, but only a particular member 
thereof”? .... ‘and I believe that the said Church of Rome, with 
all the other particular Churches in the world, compacted and 
united together, do make and constitute but one Catholic Church 
or body.” ! So the Necessary Doctrine, “ The Church of Rome, 
being but a several Church, challenging that name of Catholic 
above all other, doeth great wrong to all other Churches, and doeth 
only by force and maintenance support an unjust usurpation.” ? 

In Cranmer’s Catechism, after a denunciation of the great sin 
of worshipping images of the saints, it is said: “" Thus, good chil- 
dren, I have declared how we were wont to abuse images; not 
that I herein condemn your fathers, who were men of great devo- 
tion, and had an earnest love towards God, although their zeal in 
all points was not ruled and governed by true knowledge; but 
they were seduced and blinded partly by the common ignorance 
that reigned in their time, partly by the covetousness of their 
teachers,” 5 &c. Here the members of the Church before the Ref- 
ormation are spoken of as pious, though ignorant and misled. So 
Cranmer frequently charges popery, not on the people, but on the 
Pope and the friars who deluded them. In his appeal at his 
degradation, he says, ““ Originally the Church of Rome, as it were 
the lady of the world, both was and also was conceited worthily, 
the mother of other Churches.” He then proceeds to speak of 
corruptions introduced into the Roman and afterwards into other 
Churches, ‘‘ growing out of kind into the manners of the Church 
their mother; ” he says, there is no hope of Reformation from the 
Pope, and therefore from him appeals to a “ free general council” 
of the whole Church ; and adds, that he is ‘* ready in all things to 
follow the judgment of the most sacred word of God, and of the 
holy Catholic Church.’ ὅ 

So then, although the English, like the foreign reformers, fre- 
quently called the papal power Antichrist, the Man of sin, the 
Beast, &c., deplore and condemn the idolatrous state of the Church 


mihi longis rationibus disputandum sit, * Works, 111. p. 8056. “I charge none 
nos Pauli auctoritate contentos esse de- with the name of papists but that be 
cet, qui Antichristum in templo Dei ses- well worthy thereof. For I charge not 
surum pronunciat.”— Epist. p, 57. See the hearers, but the teachers, not the 
also /nstitut. rv. ii. 12. learners, but the inventors of the untrue 
‘ Formularies of Faith, p. 56. doctrine.” 
2 p. 247. 5 Works, τὺ. pp. 125, 126, 127. 
ο Catechism, pp. 26, 27. 
59 


466 OF THE CHURCH. [Arr. XIX. 


before the Reformation, and of the Church which continued in 
union with Rome after the Reformation, and in consequence often 
use language which appears to imply that the Church of Rome 
_ was no true Church at all; still they often speak, as this Article 
does, of the Church of Rome as yet a Church, though a corrupt, 
degenerate, and erring Church. Accordingly, the XX Xth Canon 
declares : ‘‘ So far was it from the purpose of the Church of Eng- 
land to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, 
Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things that they held 
or practised, that, as the Apology of the Church of England confess- 
eth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither 
endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men ; 
and only departed from them in those particular points wherein 
they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, 
and: from the Apostolical Churches, which were their first found- 
ers.’ 

The tone and temper of the Church of England appears there- 
fore to be that of a body earnestly and steadfastly protesting against 
Romanism, against all the errors, abuses, and idolatries of the 
Church of Rome, and the usurpation of the See of Rome ; but yet 
acknowledging that, with a fearful amount of error, the Churches 
of the Roman communion are still branches, though corrupt branches 
of the universal Church of Christ. 

The divine who has been commonly considered as the most 
accredited exponent of the principles of the Church of England, 
thus speaks in her behalf: ‘In the Church of Christ we were (i. e. 
before the Reformation), and we are so still. Other difference 
between our estate before andnow we know none, but only such 
as we see in Judah; which, having some time been idolatrous, 
became afterwards more soundly religious by renouncing idolatry 
and superstition. ... The indisposition of the Church of Rome to 
reform herself priest be no stay unto us from performing our duty 
to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them could 
be no excuse if we did not perform our duty. Notwithstanding, 
so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship 
with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel, that they 
are in one respect enemies, but in another beloved of God (Rom. 
xi. 28) ; in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate touch- 
ing her grievous abominations, yet, touching those main parts of 
Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly ac 
knowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ.” ἢ 


1 Hooker, Fecl. Pol. 111. i. 10. 
‘ 


Sec. II.] OF THE CHURCH. 467 


This is not the language of one great man; but most consistent 
with it have been the sentiments of almost all those eminent writ- 
ers of our Church, who are known and reverenced as the great 
types of Anglican piety, learning, and charity.’ It is infinitely to 
be desired that there should be no relaxation of our protest against 
error and corruption; but the force of a protest can never be in- 
creased by uncharitableness or exaggeration. Let Rome throw 
off her false additions to the Creed, and we will gladly communi- 
cate with her; but, so long as she retains her errors, we cannot 
but stand aloof, lest we should be partakers of her sins. 





Sxcrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


fs word ἐκκλησία, rendered Church, should, according to its 
derivation, signify persons called out from among others for 
some purpose. At Athens, the ZHeclesia was the general assembly 
of the people, convened by the crier for legislation. In the old 
Testament, the word is often used by the LXX. to translate the 
Hebrew 577, which commonly expresses the assembly or congre- 
gation of the people of Israel.?_ Accordingly, when adopted in 
the new Testament, it is used to signify the whole assembly or 
congregation of the people of God under the Gospel, as it had 
been before to signify the congregation of the people of God un- 
der the Law. And as συναγωγὴ, Synagogue, was the more fre- 
quent word for the congregation of the Jews; so perhaps our Lord 
and his Apostles adopted, by preference and for distinction’s sake, 
the word ἐκκλησία, Church, for the congregation of Christians. 

1. Now it is well known and obvious, that the word Congre- 
gation, as read in the old Testament, not only meant an assembly 
of the people gathered together at a special time for worship, but 
was constantly used to express the whole body of worshippers, the 
whole people of Israel, the congregation which the Lord had pur- 
chased (e. g. Ex. xii. 19. Lev. iv. 15. Num. xvi. 3, 9; xxvii, 17. 
Josh. xxii. 18, 20. Judg. xxi. 18, 16. Ps. Ixxiv. 2). 

1 The student may consult Palmer, xvi. 1-8; Lev. iv. 18, 14, 21; Num. 
On the Church, ch. x1. where he will find xvi. ὃ; xx. 6. In Psalm xxii. 22, “In 
quotations from Bp. Hall, Archbp. Usher, the midst of the Congregation will I praise 
Hammond, Chillingworth, Field, &c. Thee,” is rendered by the Apostle, “In 

2 bap is often rendered ἐκκλησία, as_ the midst of the Church will I praise 
ὥραν ἸΣ, 10; xvill, 16; dudgesxal.B: ΣΝ aa ΤῊΣ aa 
; > speaks of “the Church in the wilder- 


1 Kings viii. 65 ; 2 Chron. vii. 8, 12; ” se : a 
often it is rendered συναγωγὴ, as Exod. pind oe PBL a the con 


468 OF THE CHURCH. [Arr. XIX. 


This too, mutatis mutandis, is the ordinary acceptation of the 
word Church, in the new Testament. It applies to the society of 
Christians, to those who believe in Christ, to those who live in 
Christian fellowship, and partake of Gospel privileges. For ex- 
ample: ‘Give none offence, neither to the Jews nor to the Gen- 
tiles, nor to the Church of God” (1 Cor. x. 82).:}: “ On this rock 
I will build My Church” (Matt. xvi. 18). “Saul made havoc of 
the Church” (Acts viii. 3). ‘* Persecuted the Church of God” 
(1 Cor. xv. 9). “ The Lord added to the Church such as should 
be saved” (Acts ii. 47). ““ Fear came on all the Church ” (Acts, 
v.11). “The Church is subject unto Christ” (Eph. v. 24). 
‘God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily 
prophets,” &c. (1 Cor. xii. 28). 

2. But it also signifies the Church, or body of Christians in a 
particular town or country. Thus we read of “ the Church which 
was at Jerusalem” (Acts viii. 1); ‘the Church which was at 
Antioch " (Acts xiii. 1); “the elders of the Church at Ephesus ” 
(Acts xx.17); ‘¢ the Church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 
i, 2. Compare Rom. xvi. 1, 4; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; Col. iv. 16; Rev. 
il. ; il. &e. &e.) 

8. It is used even for a single family of Christians, or a single 
congregation meeting for worship, as the first Christians did, in a 
private house, ὁ. g. ““ Priscilla and Aquila, and the Church that is 
in their house” (Rom. xvi. 5. 1 Cor. xvi. 19); “" Nymphas and 
the Church which is in his house ” (Col. iv. 15); “* The Church in 
thy house ᾽ (Philem. 2). And accordingly, at times we find the 
word used in the plural, as signifying the various congregations of 
Christians, whether in one single city, or throughout the world; 
as Acts ix. 81; xv. 41. Rom. xvi. 4. 1 Cor. vii. 17; xi. 16; xiv. 
33; xvi. 1,19. Rev. i. 4, 11; ii. 23, ὥς. 

We may say therefore, that as the Congregation among the 
Jews signified either a body of worshippers, or more often the 
great body of worshippers assembled at the temple or tabernacle, 
or the great body of the Jewish people considered as the people of 
God; so the Church amongst Christians signifies, in the new Tes- 
tament, either a single congregation of Christians, or the whole 
body of Christians in a particular place, or the whole body of 
Christians dispersed throughout the world. : 

In our Article the word Church is interpreted Congregation, 
probably on the ground of the above considerations; namely, 


1 In this passage the “Church” is used to distinguish Christians from Jews 
and heathens. 


Src. IL] OF THE CHURCH. 469 


because such is the original meaning of the word, and such its 
application many times in Scripture. The Church is called “a 
Congregation of faithful men,” ceetus fidelium, because those of 
whom the Church is composed are the professed believers in Jesus 
Christ, that body of people “first called Christians in Antioch ”’ 
(Acts xi. 26). 

The name which our Lord Himself most frequently uses for 
the Church is, “the kingdom of God,” or “the kingdom of 
Heaven.” The prophets constantly spoke of the Messiah as the 
King who should reign in righteousness (Isai. xxxii. 1), the King 
who should reign and prosper (Jer. xxiii. 5), the King of Israel, 
who should come to Zion, ‘just, and having salvation ’’( Zech. ix. 
9). Daniel foretold that, when the Assyrian, Medo-Persian, and 
Grecian empires had passed away, and after the fourth great em- 
pire of Rome had been established, “the God of Heaven should 
set up a kingdom, which should never be destroyed” (Dan. ii. 
44); that the Son of Man should have given Him “ dominion, 
and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, 
should serve Him’”’ (Dan. vii. 14). These prophecies led the Jews 
to expect that Messiah should set up a temporal kingdom, with 
all the glory and splendour of the kingdoms of this world. Our 
Lord Himself, therefore, uses the language of the Prophets, and 
the language current among the Jews, continually calling the 
Church, which He was to establish, by the name of kingdom: 
“My kingdom,” “kingdom of God,” “kingdom of Heaven,” 
though often correcting the mistaken views entertained of it, and: 
explaining that His kingdom was not of this world. (See Matt. 
iii. 2; iv. 17; xii. 28; xii. 88. Mark i. 14; iv. 11, 26, 30; x. 15. 
Luke iv. 48; vii. 28; viii. 1; ix. 2, 62; xvi. 16. John iii. 3. Acts 
1. 8; ἄς.) 

Having premised thus much concerning the names or titles of 
that body of which the Article treats, we may next proceed to 
consider how the Scriptures prove the various statements of the 
Article. 

1. That the Church is a visible body of believers. 

2. That the pure word of God is held and preached in it. 

3. That the Sacraments are duly ministered in it, according to 
Christ’s ordinance. 

1. First, then, the Church is a visible body of believers. 

This, we have already observed, does not interfere with the 
belief that there is a body of persons within the Church, known 
only to God, who differ from the rest, in being not only in outward 


470 OF THE CHURCH. _ [Arr XTX 


privilege, but also in inward spirit, servants of Christ; whom some 
have called the invisible Church, and who being faithful unto death, 
will enter into the Church triumphant. Nor does it interfere with 
a belief that the saints who are in Paradise, and perhaps also the 
holy angels of heaven, are members of the Church invisible, the 
company of God’s elect and redeemed people. What we have to 
deal with here, is the Church of God, considered as Christ’s ordi- 
nance in the world, for the gathering together in one body of all 
believers in Him, and making them partakers of the various means 
of grace. 

It is argued indeed in limine, that the Church and kingdom of 
Christ cannot be visible, because our Lord said, “ The kingdom of 
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo, 
here! or, lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is within you” 
(Luke xvii. 20, 21). This, however, proves no more than this. 
The Pharisees, who had asked “ when the kingdom of God should 
come ?”’ expected a kingdom of earthly glory, pomp, and splendour. 
Our Lord answered, that this was not the way in which His king- 
dom should come, not with observation, nor so that men should 
point out, Lo here! as toa splendid spectacle. On the contrary, 
God’s reign in the Church should not be like an earthly king’s, 
but in the hearts of His people." 

But it is plain, both from prophecy and the new Testament, 
that the Church was to be, and is, a visible company. “ The 
mountain of the Lord’s house was to be established on the top of 
the mountains, and all nations were to flow unto it” (Isai. ii. 2). 
Among the earthly kingdoms, Christ’s kingdom was to grow up 
gradually, like a stone hewn without hands, till it became a moun- 
tain and filled the earth, breaking in pieces and consuming the 
worldly empires (Dan. ii. 835, 44). The kingdom of heaven in the 
Gospels is compared to a field sown with good and bad seed grow- 
ing together till the harvest; to a marriage supper, where some 
have no wedding-garments ; to a net taking good and bad fish, not 
separated till the net be drawn to the shore ; by which we cannot 
fail to understand the outward communion of Christians in this 
world, in which the faithful and unfaithful live together, not fully 
separated till the Judgment (Matt. xiii, 24-30, 47-50; xxii. 11, 

1 Many consider that the passage be noted that in the new Testament the 
ought to be rendered not “ within you,” words Kingdom of God signify three 
but “amongst you,” ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, i. 6. things: —1. The reign of Christ in His 
Though you expect to see some sign of Church on earth. 2. The reign of Christ 
a kingdom, yet in truth the kingdom of in the hearts of His people. 8. The 


God is already come among you, and reign of Christ in the eternal kingdom 
you have not recognized it. Butitis to of glory. 


Sre. If.] OF THE CHURCH. 471 


12). Such parables would be inapplicable to an invisible company, 
and can only be interpreted of a visible body. 

Our Lord distinctly commanded, that, if a Christian offended 
against his brother, the offence should be told to the Church 
(Matt. xviii. 17). But if the Church were not a visible and ascer- 
tainable body, such a thing could not be. Accordingly our Lord 
addresses His Church, as “the light of the world, a city set on a 
hill, that cannot be hid” (Matt. v.14). St. Paul gives Timothy 
directions how to act as a bishop, that he might ‘ know how to be- 
have himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the liv- 
ing God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (Tim. iii. 15). This 
would be unintelligible, if the Church were only an invisible 
spiritual society of faithful Christians, and not an outward organ- 
ized body. So, when first persons were brought in large numbers 
to believe the Gospel, we are taught that all those who were placed. 
in a state of salvation were “added to the Church ” (Acts ii. 47) ; 
evidently, from the context, by the rite of baptism. This again 
plainly intimates that the Church was a definite visible body of. 
men. ‘The same appears from such expressions as the following: 
‘“‘ Fear came on all the Church” (Acts v. 11); “ἃ great persecu- 
tion against the Church” (Acts viii. 1); “assembled themselves 
with the Church” (Acts xi. 26); ‘“ God hath set some in the 
Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets” (1 Cor. xii. 28). 
The clergy are called ‘the elders of the Church”’(Acts xx. 17. 
James v. 14) who are “ to feed the Church of God” (Acts xx. 28), 
to “take care of the Church of God” (1 Tim. iii. 5). People 
are spoken of as cast out of the Church (3 John 10). The same 
thing appears again from what is said of local or national Churches, 
which, being branches of the one universal Church, are evidently 
and constantly spoken of as the visible society of Christians in 
their respective cities or countries. (See Acts xi. 22; xiii. 1; 
xiv. 23; xv. 8, 22. Rom. xvi. 1, 16, 23. 1 Cor. vi. 43 vii. 1T; 
xi. 16; xiv. 33; xvi. 1,19. Gal. i. 22. 1 Thess. ii. 14. Rev. i. 
4, ὅς.) 

Accordingly, St. Paul, when he speaks of the unity of the 
Church, speaks not only of spiritual, but of external unity also ; 
for he says, “There is one body, and one spirit” (Eph. iv. 4). 
And our blessed Lord, when praying for the unity of His dis- 
ciples, evidently desired a visible unity, which might be a witness 
for God to the world; ‘* that they also may be one in Us, that the 
world may believe,” &c. (John xvii. 21). 

We conclude therefore that, as the primitive Church always 


472 OF THE CHURCH. [Arr. XIX. 


held, so Scripture also teaches, that the Church is not merely a 
spiritual and mystical communion of faithful Christians, known only 
to God, but is a visible body of those who are outward followers of 
Christ, consisting partly of faithful, partly of unfaithful, but all 
professed believers in the Gospel. 

2. The first characteristic given us of this body is, that the pure 
Word of God, or, in other language, the true faith, is kept and 
preached in it. 

The Church is called by St. Paul “the pillar and ground of the 
truth” (1 Tim. iii. 15) ; whence it is manifest that a main prov- 
ince of the Church is to maintain and support the truth. Our 
blessed Lord prayed for His disciples, that the Father would “ sanc- 
tify them through His truth’ (John xvii.17). He promised to the 
Apostles that ‘ the Spirit of truth should guide them into all truth ” 
(John xvi. 13). He bade them “ go and teach all nations ” (Matt. 
xxviii. 19). And we learn of the first converted Christians, that 
they continued in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship” (Acts ii. 
42). Accordingly, the Apostles speak of the faith as onz (Ephes. 
iv. 5); of the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3); urge 
Christians “‘ earnestly to contend for” it (Jude 3); and desire 
their bishops ‘* to rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in 
the faith” (Tit. i. 18). 

Hence to introduce false doctrine or heresy into the Church is 
described as damning sin. St. Peter speaks of those ‘ who privily 
shall bring in damnable heresies” (2 Pet. ii. 1). St. Paul classes 
heresies among the works of the flesh (Gal. v. 20). He says, “ If 
any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have re- 
ceived, let him be anathema” (Gal. i. 9). He bids Timothy with- 
draw himself from those ‘* who teach otherwise, and consent not 
to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and to the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim. vi. 
8,5). And to Titus he says,‘ A man that is an heretic, after 
the first and second admonition, reject”’ (Tit. iii. 10). St. John 
bids, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, re- 
ceive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed” (2 
John 10). He says, “ Whosoever abideth not in the doctrine of 
Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9). And calls all who “ deny the 
Father and the Son,” or * deny that Jesus Christ has come in the 
flesh,” not Christians, but Antichrists (1 John ii, 22. 2 John 7). 

Thus Scripture represents the Church as a body holding the 
truth, nay, ‘‘ the pillar and ground of the truth; and heretics, or 
persons holding vital error, are spoken of as apart from God, to be 


So. II] OF THE CHURCH. 418 


rejected, and not received as fellow-Christians or members of 
Christ’s Church. 

The wording of our Article, ‘the pure word of God,” may be 
somewhat difficult. Some would confine the meaning of it within 
very narrow limits, others would extend it to an indefinite latitude. 
We must notice, that the expression is not, ‘the word of Godis 
purely preached,” but, “the pure word of God is preached.” If 
the former words had been used, we might have doubted in what 
body of Christians God’s Word was always purely preached, with 
no mixture of falsehood orerror. But “the pure word of God” is 
preached, wherever the main doctrines of the Gospel are preserved 
and taught. The question, however, of ‘ fundamentals ”’ has always 
been considered difficult; and different persons have chosen to 
make different doctrines fundamental, according to their own pecu- 
liar views of truth. Hence, some have excluded almost all Chris- 
tians except themselves from holding the pure word of God; others 

have scarcely shut out Arians, Socinians, or even Deists. We may 
be sure the Church intended to maintain the purity of Christian 
truth, yet without the narrowness of sectarian bigotry. The way 
in which her own formularies are drawn up, — the first five Arti- 
cles being almost a repetition and enforcement of the chief Articles 
of the Creed, and the eighth containing the Creeds themselves, — 
the question addressed to all members of the Church before admis- 
sion to baptism, in the Catechism and in sickness, as to whether 
they believed the Creed, — the repetition on every Sunday and holy- 
day of two of the Creeds, and once every month of the third, in the 
public service by the congregation, — the expressed adherence by 
the reformers to the decrees of the first four General Councils, — 
the general agreement to the same effect by the primitive Church, 
with which the reformers declared themselves to be in perfect ac- 
cordance and unison : — these, and the like considerations, make it 
nearly certain that the compilers of the Article would have, and 
must have intended, that all who truly believed the Creeds of the 
Church were so far in possession and belief of ‘‘ the pure word of 
God” as not to have forfeited the character of Christians, or the 
fellowship of the Christian Church. 

3. The next mark of the Church is, that ‘ the Sacraments be 
duly ministered, according to Christ’s ordinance.”? We know, that, 
among the Jews, circumcision and the passover were essential to 
the existence of the people as the congregation of the Lord, and 
that he who rejected or neglected either was to be cut off from 
His people (Gen. xvii. 14. Exod. xii. 15). When the Lord Jesus 

60 


474 OF THE CHURCH. (Arr. XIX. 


founded His Church, He appointed the two Sacraments to super- 
sede the two great ordinances of the Synagogue, namely, baptism, 
to initiate the convert or the child, the Eucharist, to maintain com- 
munion with Himself and with His people. 

The command which He gave to His Apostles was to “‘ make 
disciples of all nations by baptizing them ” (Matt. xxviii. 19): that 
is to say, persons from all nations, who believed the Gospel, were 
to be admitted into the number of the disciples, the Church of 
Christ, by the Sacrament of baptism. We know that the Apostles 
acted on this command, ever receiving by the rite of baptism all 
who had been converted to the truth. (See Acts ii. 88, 41; viii. 
12, 18, 36-38; ix. 18; x. 47, 48; xvi. 14, 15, 33; xix. 3, 5. 
Rom. vi. 3,4. Gal. iii. 27. Col. ii. 11,12. 1 Pet. iii. 20,21, ὥς.) 
Nay! our Lord Himself declared, “ Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 
iii. 5). Whence it is quite clear, that a Christian Church must 
administer baptism according to our Lord’s command and the ex- 
ample of the Apostles, for otherwise its members could not be 
“born of water.” 

But our blessed Lord, moreover, commanded His Apostles to 
break the bread and bless the wine in remembrance of Him ; and 
declared the bread broken and the cup poured out to be His Body 
and Blood (Matt. xxvi. 26-30). Moreover, He declared that ex- 
cept a Christian received the grace of His Body and Blood, he had 
no life in him (John vi. 53). Accordingly, we ever find that the 
Apostles and the Apostolic Churches “continued stedfastly in the 
breaking of bread” (Acts ii. 42; xx. 7, 11. 1 Cor. x. 16, 17; xi. 
17, ἄς.) ; believing and declaring, that the “‘ cup which they blessed 
was the communion of the Blood of Christ, and the bread which 
they brake was the communion of the Body of Christ” (1 Cor. 
x. 16). 

These two Sacraments, therefore, Baptism and the Holy Com- 
munion, were the ordinance of Christ, essential to the existence 
of His Church, steadily administered by His first ministers, and 
received by His early disciples, as completely as Circumcision and 
the Passover in the old dispensation of the Jews. The Article 
therefore justly asserts, that it isa necessary note of the Church, 
that the Sacraments should be duly ministered, according to the 
ordinance of Christ. 

4. There is still one more point to be noticed. The Article says 
the “pure word of God” is not only to be held, but to be 
“preached ;" and that the Sacraments are to be “ puLy ministered 


See. II] OF THE CHURCH. 418 


according to Christ’s ordinance.” The first expression at once 
suggests the question, ““ How shall they hear without a preacher? 
and how shall they preach except they be sent?” The second 
expression suggests the inquiry, How can sacraments be DULY 
ministered ? and, whom has Christ authorized to minister them? 
The definition evidently implies the consideration of a ministry : 
even as we saw both fathers and reformers mentioning a duly or- 
dained ministry as essential to the character of a Church. The 
present Article may possibly have less distinctly enunciated this, 
because in two future Articles the subject is specially treated. 

It is a truth hardly questioned, that our Lord did ordain a minis- 
try for the preaching of the word, and that those so ordained did 
exercise that ministry, and considered themselves as sent by Christ 
to fulfil it. (See Matt. x.; xxviii. 19,20. Luke x. 1,16. John 
xx. 21, 28. Acts xx. 20; xxvi. 17. 1 Cor. iv. 1; ix. 16, 17; 
xii. 28. 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 1. Eph. iv. 11, 14. Phil. i, 1. 
Col. iv. 17. 1 Tim. iii, 1. Tit-i. 5. 1 Pet. v. 1, &. &.) It is 
also quite certain that those to whom He gave authority to bap- 
tize, and those whom He commanded to bless the cup and break the 
bread in the Communion, were His commissioned and ordained 
Apostles (see the institution of the Eucharist in Matt. xxvi, and 
of Baptism in Matt. xxviii). Moreover, we never hear of any one 
in the new Testament, except a minister of God, attempting to 
baptize or to administer the Holy Communion. We know equally 
well, that the practice and belief of the Primitive Church was that 
none but bishops and presbyters should minister the Communion, 
and, ordinarily at least, none but bishops, priests, or deacons, should 
preach or baptize. 

Thus then we conclude, that to the right preaching of the Word, 
and to the due administration of the Sacraments according to 
Christ’s ordinance, a ministry, such as Christ ordained, is necessary, 
and therefore is included in the definition of this Article. 

Moreover, as Baptism was to be with water, and the Eucharist 
with bread and wine, these elements must be used in order that 
they be duly administered; and, with the elements, that form of 
words which Christ has prescribed, at least in the case of Baptism, 
where a distinct form has been given. And so, the Sacraments, to 
be duly administered, need first the right elements, then the right 
form of words, and lastly, a ministry according to the ordinance of 
Christ. 

5. It has been already noticed, that the definitions of the Arti- 
cle may be fairly considered as including the statement given in 


476 OF THE CHURCH. _ [Arr XIX. 


the Homily and in other partly authoritative documents, that one 
note of the Church is discipline, or the power of the Keys. For, 
if the Sacraments be duly ministered, unfit persons must be shut 
out from them; and if there be a duly constituted ministry, that 
ministry must have the power of the Keys committed by Christ to 
His Church. But, as this subject falls more naturally under Arti- 
cle XX XIII., we may defer its fuller consideration for the present. 

The formularies of our Church have expressed no judgment as 
to how far the very being of a Church may be imperilled by a de- 
fect in this particular note of the Church; as by mutilation of the 
Sacraments, imperfect ordination, or defective exercise of the 
power of the Keys. At the present time, these questions force 
themselves on us. But the English Church has been content to 
give her decision as to the right mode of ordaining, ministering 
Sacraments, and exercising discipline, without expressing an opinion 
on the degree of defectiveness in such matters which would cause 
other communions to cease from being Churches of Christ. 


II. ‘The Church of Rome hath erred, not only in living and 
manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.” 

So many of the Articles specially enter upon the errors of the 
Church of Rome that the subject may require very brief notice 
here. By ‘matters of faith” probably it is not intended to express 
articles of the Creed. Had the Church of Rome rejected the 
Creeds, and those fundamental articles of the faith contained in 
them, the Church of England would probably have considered 
her distinctly as a heresy, and not as a corrupt and erring Church. 
But there are many errors which concern the faith of Christ, 
besides those which strike at the very foundation, and would over- 
throw even the Creeds themselves. 

Amongst these we may reckon all those novelties and hetero- 
doxies contained in the Creed of Pope Pius IV., or of the Council 
‘of Trent. They are thus reckoned up by Dr. Reon: 1. Seven 
Sacraments. 2. Trent doctrine of Justification and Original Sin. 
3. Propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass. 4. Transubstantiation. 4. 
Communicating under one kind. 6. Purgatory. 7. Invocation of 
Saints. 8. Veneration of Relics. 9. Worship of Images. 10. 
The Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all 
Churches. 11. Swearing Obedience to the Pope. 12. Receiving 
the decrees of all synods and of Trent. 

It is true that these do not involve a denial of the Creeds, but 


1 Barrow, On the Pope's Supremacy, p. 290, conclusion. 


Src. IL] OF THE CHURCH. 


ATT 


they are additions to the Creeds, and error may be shown in excess, 
as well as in defect of belief. They are to be received by all mem- 
bers of the Church of Rome, as articles of faith. They are not 
with them mere matters of opinion. Every priest is required to 
swear that they form parts of the Catholic faith, without which no 
one can be saved.!_ Now the Church of England holds all of them 
to be false: several of her Articles are directed against these very 
doctrines as fabulous and dangerous; and therefore she must con- 
clude, that “‘the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in living 
and manner of ceremonies, but also in” those very points which 
she herself has declared to be “ matters of faith.” 


1 The Creed of Pope Pius IV. begins 
with a declaration of firm faith in the 
various Articles in the Nicene, or Con- 
stantinopolitan Creed; and then con- 
tinues with a like declaration of firm 
faith in the twelve novelties enumerated 
in the text. It finally rejects and anathe- 
matizes all things rejected and anathe- 
matized by the Council of Trent. And 
concludes with a solemn vow and pro- 


fession of all this as “the true Catholie 
faith, out of which no one can be saved.” 
“Hane veram Catholicam fidem extra 
quam nemo salyus esse potest .... 
sponte profiteor ac veraciter teneo, spon- 
deo, voveo ac juro. Sic me Deus adju- 
vet et hec sancta Dei evangelia.” Con- 
cil. Trident. Canones et Decreta, pp. 870- 
878, Monast. Guestphalorum, 1845. 


ARTICLE XX. 


SY vee 


Of the Authority of the Church. 


Tse Church hath power to decree 
rites or ceremonies, and authority in con- 
troversies of faith ; and yet it is not law- 
ful for the Church to ordain anything 
that is contrary to God’s word written, 
neither may it so expound one place of 
Scripture that it be repugnant to another. 
Wherefore, although the Church be a 
witness and a keeper of Holy Writ; yet, 
as it ought not to decree anything against 
the same, so besides the same ought it 


De Ecclesiae Authoritate. 


Haset Ecclesia ritus sive caremonias 
statuendi jus, et in fidei controversiis 
authoritatem ; quamvis Ecclesie non li- 
cet quicquam instituere, quod verbo Dei 
scripto adversetur, nec unum scripture 
locum sic exponere potest, ut alteri con- 
tradicat. Quare licet Ecclesia sit divi- 
norum librorum testis et conservatrix, at- 
tamen ut adversus eos nihil decernere, 
ita preter illos nihil credendum de neces- 
sitate salutis debet obtrudere. 


not to enforce anything to be believed 
for necessity of salvation. 





Section I.— HISTORY. 


ΤῊΝ history of this Article is famous, owing to the dispute con- 

cerning the first clause of it: ‘* The Church hath power to 
decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith.” 
The Article of 1552 (then the XXIst Article) had not the clause. 
Moreover, the first draught of the Articles in Elizabeth’s reign 
(A. D. 1562) had it not. In this form the Articles were signed by 
both houses of convocation ; and the original document so signed, 
is now in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Yet 
this document had never synodical authority, for it never received 
the ratification of the crown. Before the royal assent was given, 
some alterations were made : namely, the addition of this clause, and 
the omission of Article XXIX. The clause itself was taken from 
the Lutheran Confession of Wurtemberg, from which source Arch- 
bishop Parker derived most of the additions which were made in 
Queen Elizabeth’s reign to the Articles drawn up by Crammer in 
the reign of Edward VI.1_ It is supposed that the Queen’s wish 
induced the council to make this alteration. And when it had 
been made, the Latin edition of R. Wolfe was published in 1563, 
printed by the Queen’s command, and with a declaration of her 


hee ecclesia habeat jus interpretande 


1 In the Wurtemberg confession are 
aia — Laurence, Bamp. Lect. Ὁ. 


the words: ‘“Credimus et confitemur 
quod .... hee ecclesia habeat jus judi- 
candi de omnibus doctrinis .... quod 


Src. 1. OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 479 


royal approval. This copy, therefore, is considered as possessed 
of full synodical authority. The fine English edition, printed by 
Jugge and Cawood in 1563, has not the clause,! and this is very 
probably the copy of the Articles submitted to Parliament, which 
passed an Act (13 Eliz. Cap. 12) giving the authority of statute 
law to what had already received the authority of the Queen and 
convocation. 

After this, the printed copies varied, some omitting, but most 
retaining the clause. It does not appear that any English copy 
received the authority of convocation till 1571; and then, no doubt, 
the copy corresponded with one of those printed by Jugge and 
Cawood, with the date 1571. Dr. Cardwell gives an accurate 
reprint of one of these, containing the disputed clause.2 Yet 
there were other editions, put forth by the same printers, with the 
same date 1571, some retaining, others omitting the clause. From 
that time the greater number of editions have the clause. Dr. 
Cardwell enumerates editions of 1563, 1571, as omitting it; and as 
retaining it, editions of 1563, 1571, 1581, 1586, 1593, 1612, 1624, 
1628, and all subsequent editions. ΑἸ] subscriptions, therefore, 
and acts of Parliament, after this period, had reference to the Ar- 
ticle with the first clause as forming part of it; and not to the form 
in which it was first passed by convocation, before the Queen’s 
sanction was obtained. 

Important as the question concerning this clause has been 
thought, it is truly observed that that portion of it concerning rites 
and ceremonies is fully expressed in Article XXXIV.; and that 
that portion which concerns controversies of faith is virtually con- 
tained in the latter part of this Article itself. 

It is not necessary to spend much time in proving that the primi- 
tive Church claimed a certain authority, both in matters of cere- 
mony and in controversies of faith. This is self-apparent from the 
fact, that, when any disputes arose, whether of doctrine or of 
discipline, synods and councils continually met to decide upon them, 
and declare the judgment of the Church. Where a judgment is 
pronounced, authority must be claimed. The first general council 
of Nice was assembled for the express purpose of giving the judg- 
ment of the Church, represented by the fathers of that council, on 
a most important point of doctrine, namely, the Deity of the Son 

1 Though it had not this clause, in- given by Dr. Cardwell, Synodalia, 1. p. 
serted at the Queen’s desire, yet it 53. 
omitted Art. xx1x., expunged by the 2. Synodal.1. p. 98. 

Queen’s desire. The Articles were ὃ. See Cardwell’s Synodalia, 1. pp. 84, 


therefore, as so passed by Parliament, 53, 78, 90, &c.; and the authorities re- 
only thirty-eight in number. They are ferred to by him. 


~~ " \ ae 


480 


of God, and on a matter of ceremony, namely, the time of keeping 
Easter. The Epistle of Constantine to the Churches, written as it 
were from the council, urges all Christians to receive the decrees of 
the bishops so assembled as the will of God. 

The fathers certainly taught that the authority of the Church 
was to be obeyed and received with deep respect. Irenzus says, 
**‘ Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God . . . . but the 
Spirit is truth.” ? Tertullian, ** Every doctrine is to be judged as 
false which is opposed to the truth taught by the Churches, the 
Apostles, Christ, and God.”® St. Cyril says, ‘* The Church is 
called Catholic, because it teaches universally, and without omis- 
sion, all doctrines needful to be known.” 4 Passages to the same 
purport might be abundantly multiplied, if evidences of so well- 
known a fact could be required. 

When controversies arose, whether about doctrine, or about 
rules and ceremonies and Church-ordinances, such as the keeping 
of Easter, the rebaptizing of heretics, or the enforcing of discipline 
on the lapsed, it could hardly be but that the Church should ex- 
ercise some discretion, and pronounce some judgment. Most of 
the canons of the early councils will be found to be on matters of 
discipline ; and as Scripture generally left them undecided, it was 
necessary for the representatives of the Church to use the best 
judgment they could upon them. To this end they strove, looking 
for the guidance of the Spirit, following Scripture where it gave 
them light, and on those points on which Scripture was silent, 
following that rule unanimously adopted at Nice, “" Let the ancient 
customs prevail,” τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη xpareirw® 

Yet, that the fathers held the authority of Scripture to be pri- 
mary and paramount, and considered that the Church had no 
power to enact new articles of faith, nor to decree anything which 
was contrary to the Scriptures, has already been shown sufficiently, 
and the proof needs not to be repeated here. The power of the 
Church they held, not as an authority superior or equal to the 
Scriptures, but as declaratory of them when doubtful, and decretory 
on matters of discipline. 


OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. [Arr. XX 


1 Euseb. De Vita Constantin. 111. 20. 

2 “Ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus 
Dei; et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic ecclesia et 
omnis gratia. hid autem veritas.” 
— Lib. 111. cap. 40. 

8 Omnem vero doctrinam de mendacio 
prejudicandam que sapiat contra veri- 
tatem LEcclesiarum et Apostolorum et 
Christi et Dei.” — De Prescript. Heret. c. 


21. 
4 διὰ τὸ διδάσκειν καϑολικῶς καὶ ἀνελλει- 


πῶς ἅπαντα τὰ εἰς γνῶσιν ἀνθρώπων ἐλϑεῖν 
ὀφείλοντα δόγματα. ---- Cateches. χυτῖι. 11. 
See Palmer, On the Church, 11. pt. 1v. ch. 


Iv. 

5 The principle of observing tradi- 
tionary ceremonies, where Scripture is 
silent, is laid down by Tertullian, De Co- 
rona, c. 8, 4,5. See Palmer, 11. pt. Iv. 
ch. Iv. 

® See above, p. 147, seg. Article v1. 
Sect. 1. 111. 


580. I.] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 481 


The reformers in general did not deny such authority to the 
Church, to interpret Scripture in case of disputes upon doctrine, 
nor to adopt or retain ceremonies of ancient custom or human 
institution, not contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Thus the 
Confession of Augsburg says, ‘“‘ We do not despise the consent of 
the Catholic Church .... nor are we willing to patronize im- 
pious opinions, which the Church Catholic. has condemned.” ? It 
declares. that there are indifferent ceremonies, which ought to be 
observed for the good order of the Church.? But on the other 
hand, it pronounces that ‘the bishops have no power to decree 
anything contrary to the Gospel.” ὃ 

Calvin, denying that the Church has any power to introduce 
new doctrines, yet gladly admits, that when a discussion concern- 
ing doctrine arises, no more fit mode of settling it can be devised 
than a meeting of bishops to discuss it. And he mentions with 
approbation the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus.‘ 

The language of the English reformers is still plainer. |The 
Preface to the Book of Common Prayer gives reasons why the 
Church abolished some and retained other ceremonies ; and though 
it speaks of ceremonies as but small things in themselves, it yet 
declares that the wilful transgression ‘and breaking of a common 
rule and discipline is no small offence before God.” 

Cranmer appealed to a general council, protesting, ‘* I intend to 
speak nothing against one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, or 
the authority thereof; the which authority I have in great rever- 
ence, and to whom my mind is in all things to obey :᾽ > and declar- 
ing, “1 may err, but heretic I cannot Ἧς: ; forasmuch as I am 
ready in all things to follow the judgment of the most sacred word 
of God, and of the holy Catholic Church.”® He declares his 
agreement with Vincentius Lirinensis, who taught that ‘ the Bible 
is perfect and sufficient of itself for the truth of the Catholic faith, 
and that the whole Church cannot make one article of faith; al- 
though it may be taken as a necessary witness of the same, with 
these three conditions, that the thing which we would establish 
thereby hath been believed in all places, ever, and of all men.” ἵ 
In short, his judgment appears to have been clearly, that “ every 


1 “Non enim aspernamur consensum 3% Sylloge, Ὁ. 154. 


catholice Ecclesie. . . . nec patrocinari * Instit. 1v. ix. 18. 

impiis aut seditiosis opinionibus volumus, 5 Appeal at his Degradation, Works, 
quas ecclesia Catholica damnavit.” — tv. p. 121. 

nen ine August. 1540. Art.21; Sylloge, 5. Ibid. p. 127. 

Ρ. 189. 7 Answer to Smythe's Preface, 111. p. 28. 


2 Pars 1. Art. xv. 1581; Sylloge, p 
127; 1540, p. 174. 
61 


482 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. [Art xX. 


exposition of Scripture in which the whole Church agreed,” 
was to be received ; but that the Church had no power to decree 
Articles of faith without the Scripture, though rites indifferent she 
might decree.} 

The origin of the dispute about the first clause in this Article 
was the repugnance of the Puritan divines to the use of the sur- 
plice and other Church ordinances. This feeling arose in the 
reign of Edward VI., and the controversies gendered by it con- 
tinued to rage fiercely in Elizabeth’s. The Puritans contended, * 
not only that the Church could not enact new articles of faith, but 
that no rites nor ceremonies were admissible but those for which 
there was plain warrant in the new Testament. It is probable 
that Elizabeth and her councillors wished to have a definite asser- 
tion of the power of the Church to legislate on such points ; and 
therefore insisted on the distinct enunciation of the principle by 
the clause in question, notwithstanding that it was virtually in- 
cluded in other statements or formularies. The controversy 
reached its height in the reign of Charles I.; and one of the 
charges against Archbishop Laud was, that he had introduced this 
clause into the Articles, it not having been previously to be found 
there.2 On the subject itself the great work of Hooker was com- 
posed ; one main and principal object of that work being to prove 
the right which the Church Catholic and particular national 
Churches have to legislate on matters indifferent, and to enact 
such rites and ceremonies as are not repugnant to the teaching of 


Holy Writ. 





ΒΈΟΤΙΟΝ II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


PERE are contained in this Article three positive or affirmative, 
and two negative or restraining assertions. 


I. The affirmative are : — 
1. The Church is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ. 
2. The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies. 
8. The Church hath authority in controversies of faith, 


1 See especially rv. p. 229, quoted 2: That this charge is unfounded has 
above, in p. 185, under Article vi. See already appeared. 
also Works, 111. pp. 609, 517; τιν. pp. 
τὰ 126, 118, 228, 226, &e. 


Src. Π] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 483 


II. The restraining assertions are : — 
1. It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary 
to God’s word written. 
2. Besides the written word, she ought not to enforce any- 
thing to be believed for necessity of salvation. 


I. 1. The Church is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, for- 
asmuch as that unto it, as unto the Jews of old, “are committed 
the oracles of God” (Rom. iii. 2). As the Jews had the Old ἡ 
Testament Scriptures “ read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day ” 
(Acts xv. 21); so the Christian Church has the Scriptures of both 
Testaments read continually in her assemblies. In no way can 
she more truly fulfil her office of * pillar and ground of the truth ” 
than by preserving and maintaining those Scriptures in which the 
truth is to be found. The Scriptures are a sacred deposit left to 
the Church, to guard and to teach. The manner in which the 
ancient Churches collected and preserved the sacred writings, and 
handed them down to us, and the abundant evidence which we 
have that they have been received by us in their integrity, were 
considered at length under Art. VI.} 

We, the children of the Church, must, in the first instance at 
least, receive the word of God from her. She, by our parents and 
her ministers, puts the Bible into our hands, even before we could 
seek it for ourselves. Toher care her Lord has intrusted it. She 
keeps it, and testifies to us that it is the word of God, and teaches 
us the truths contained in it. Her ministers are enjoined “to hold 
fast the form of sound words ”’ (2 Tim. i. 13) ; “ to preach the word 
instant in season and out of season”? (2 Tim. iv. 2). And so she 
leads us, by preaching and catechizing, and other modes of instrue- 
tion, to take the Bible in our hands, and read it for ourselves. 

In these and many similar modes, the Church is a witness, as 
well as a keeper of Holy Writ. We can hardly conceive a state 
of things in which it could be otherwise. If the Church had not 
carefully guarded the Scriptures at first, they would have been 
scattered and lost, and spurious writings would have partially 
taken the place of the true. If she did not, by her teaching and 
her ministry, witness to us that the Scriptures were from above, 
and so lead us to read and reverence them, we should be obliged 
to wait till the full maturity of reason and manhood before we 
could learn what was the word of truth, and should then have 
patiently to go through for ourselves all the evidence which might 

1 See Art. vi. Sect. τ. 


484 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. [Anr. XX. 


be necessary to convince us that the Bible, and not the Koran or 
the Veda, was that which contained ‘the lively oracles of God.” 
2. The Church has power to decree rites and ceremonies. 
- In the term “rites and ceremonies” of course we do not include 
things of the same nature as Sacraments, or other ordinances of 
the Gospel. Two Sacraments were ordained of Christ, and the 
Church cannot make others like them. Ordination is from Christ's 
authority, and we learn from Scripture that it is to be performed 
by imposition of hands. The Church cannot alter this, either by 
dispensing with it, or putting something different in its room. By 
“rites and ceremonies,” therefore, are meant things comparatively 
indifferent in themselves, —the adjuncts and accidents, not the 
essence and substance of holy things. 
Certain rules are specially prescribed to us in Holy Scripture 
for regulating public worship, and for ministering the ordinances 
of God. But these rules are mostly general, and the carrying out 
of them must be regulated by some authority or other. The rules 
given are such as the following: “ Let all things be done decently 
and in order” (1 Cor. xiv. 26,40). Yet how to arrange all things 
so that they should be done decently and in order, we are not 
always told. Occasionlly, indeed, the Apostles gave something 
like specific directions ; as, for instance, St. James’s command not 
‘to allow the poor to sit in a low place, and the rich in a good place 
(James ii. 1, 10) ; St. Paul’s directions about the seemly adminis- 
tration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. xi. 17-33); and again, St. 
Paul’s command that men should be uncovered and women veiled 
(1 Cor. xi. 4-16), and that women should keep silence in the 
churches (1 Cor, xiv. 34). Yet, though in these few points there 
may be something like fixed rules laid down, the Church is gener- 
ally left to arrange so that in her public worship all things should 
be done “decently, in order, and to edifying,” without specific di- 
rections for every particular. Nay! St. Paul, when so strongly 
insisting on men being uncovered and women covered, concludes 
by arguing that, if any people are disposed to be contentious on 
this head, they ought to yield their own judgment to the customs 
of the Church. ‘If any man seem to be contentious, we have no 
such custom, neither the Churches of God” (1 Cor. xi. 16). Thus, 
therefore, the very principle laid down in Scripture seems to be 
that the Church should order and arrange the details of public 
worship, so as may be most calculated to honour God and edify the 
people ; just as St. Paul left Titus at Crete ‘ that he might set in 
order the things which were wanting ” in the Church of that land 


Src. I] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH: 485 


(Tit. i. 5). Indeed, unless by authority some rules for public 
worship were made, decency and order could never exist. Thus, 
whether prayer should be of set form or extempore — whether the 
minister should wear a peculiar dress — whether baptism should be 
by immersion or by pouring — whether at the Eucharist we should 
kneel or sit, and numerous other like questions, have all reference 
to rites and ceremonies. If the public authority of the Church 
could not enjoin anything concerning them, what utter confusion 
might exist in our assemblies! At one time prayer might be ex- 
tempore, and at another from a prayer—book. One minister might 
wear a surplice, another an academic gown, a third his common 
walking-dress, and a fourth a cope, or some fantastic device of his 
own. One person might kneel, another stand, and another sit at 
receiving the Communion. Would any one coming in to such an 
assembly “‘ report that God was in us of a truth?” And with ἐπ᾿ 
variety of opinion and feeling among Christians, much worse than 
this might easily occur, if the Church had no power to decree its 
rites and ceremonies. Yet we are taught concerning this very 
matter of decent solemnity, that “ God is not the author of con- 
fusion, but of peace, as in allthe churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 
xiv. 33). 

Thus then the injunctions of the Apostles, and the absolute 
necessity of the case, lead to the conclusion that the Church must 
have “‘ power to decree rites and ceremonies.”” And we may add, 
that all bodies of Christians, however opposed to ceremonial, have 
yet exercised the power of decreeing rites for their own bodies. 
However bare and free from ornament their public worship may 
be, yet in some way or other it is ordered and regulated, if it be 
public worship at all. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are min- 
istered with some degree of regularity ; preaching and praying are 
arranged after some kind of order; and how simple soever that 
order may be, it is an order derived from the authority of their 
own body, and not expressly prescribed in Scripture. Scripture 
teaches all things essential for salvation; but all minutiz of cere- 
monial it neither teaches nor professes to teach. Such therefore 
must be left, in some degree, to the authority and wisdom of the 
Church.! 

8. The Church has, moreover, authority in controversies of 
faith. 

This statement of the Article as necessarily follows from th 
nature of the case as the two already considered. It is only ne- 


1 See on this subject more especially Hooker, Eccl. Pol. Bk. 111. 


486 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. [Arr. XX. 


cessary to keep in mind the qualifications which the latter part of 
the Article suggests. 

Our Lord gave authority to His Church to bind and to loose, 
and to excommunicate those who would not hear the church. The 
Apostles enjoined that heretics, persons that teach false doctrine or 
deny the truth, should be shunned, excommunicated, and put out 
of the Church.’ Now, if the Church has no power to determine 
what is true and what is false, such authority would be a dead 
letter, and the Apostles’ injunctions would be vain. All here- 
tics claim Scripture as on their side. Ifthe Church is not allowed 
to exercise authority in controversies of faith, she could never re- 
ject heretics, unless indeed they went so far as to deny the truth 
of Scripture altogether. In order therefore to exercise that dis- 
cipline and power of the Keys which Christ committed to her, 
the Church must have authority to decide on what is truth, and 
what is falsehood. 

The Church is a society founded by God, for the very purpose 
of preserving, maintaining, and propagating the truth. If she had 
no power to discern truth from error, how would this be possible ? 
Her ministers are enjoined to teach and to preach the truth of the 
Gospel ; not simply to put the Bible into the hands of the people, 
and leave them to read it. Their commission is, ‘‘Go and teach 
‘all nations .... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you” (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20). They are “ by 
sound doctrine to convince the gainsayers”” (Tit. i. 9). They are 
**to feed the Church of God” (Acts xx. 28): to give * the house- 
hold of God their portion of meat in due season” (Luke xii. 42). 
The chief pastors of the Church are to * commit to faithful men, 
who shall be able to teach others also,” that truth which they have 
themselves received (2 Tim. ii. 2). And they are enjoined to 
**rebuke men sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Tit. 
i. 18). 

All this implies authority, — authority to declare truth, to main- 
tain truth, to discern truth from error, to judge when controver- 
sies arise, whether one party is heretical or not, and to reject from 
communion such as are in grievous falsehood and error. 

There are promises to the Church, and titles of the Church, 
which confirm these arguments. The Church is called “an holy 
temple in the Lord... . ἃ habitation of God through the Spirit” 
(Eph. ii. 21, 22). Individual Christians believe that they shall 


1 Matt. xviii. 17,18. Acts xx. 80. 2 Thess. iii. 6. 1 Tim. i. 8; vi. 8. Tit. i 
11; iii. 10. See Art xrx, Sect. m. 5. 


ts 


Sec. II] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHUKCH. 487 


be guided into truth by the indwelling Spirit of God; how much 
more therefore that Church which is not only composed of the 
various individual Christians, who are partakers of the Spirit, but 
is also itself built up for God’s Spirit to dwell in it? Our blessed 
Lord promises to His Church, that ‘the gates of hell shall never 
prevail against it” (Matt. xvi. 18); and that He will be with its 
pastors “always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. xxviii. 
20). Such a promise implies the constant presence, assistance, 
and guidance of Him who is the Church’s Head, and His assur- 
ance that the power of evil shall never be able to destroy the faith 
of the Church, or take away God’s truth from it; for, if once the 
faith of the Church should fail, the Church itself must fail with it. 
Hence the Church, having always the presence and guidance of 
Christ, the indwelling of His Spirit, and the assurance that the 
gates of hell shall never prevail against her; we must conclude 
that the Church will be guarded against anything like universal 
or fundamental error. And so we may say, that she not only is 
authorized to give judgments in matters of faith, but also has:a 
promise of direction in judging. 

This further appears from the Church being called “ the pillar and 
ground of the truth” (1 Tim. iii. 15). Bishop Burnet contends 
that this is a metaphor, and that we must not argue too much on 
metaphor. But, if we never try to understand the figures of Scrip- 
ture, we must neglect a very large and most important portion of 
Scripture. Indeed, almost all that is taught us about God and the 
world of spirits is taught us in figurative language, because it is 
above our common comprehension, and therefore conveyed to us 
by parables and metaphors. And the figure here is a very obvious 
one. It may mean a little more, or a little less, but its general 
meaning is plain enough. And that meaning surely is, that God 
has appointed His Church in the world, that it may hold fast, sup- 
port, and maintain the truth: and not only is it ordained for this 


end, but as all God’s ordinances are surely fitted for their purpose, 


so the Church is qualified also to uphold the truth which is com 
mitted to it. : 

Therefore we conclude, that by God’s appointment, and accord- 
ing to plain language of Scripture, “the Church hath authority in 
controversies of faith.” 


II. But the authority of the Church is not a supreme and inde- 
pendent authority. In matters of faith, it is the authority of a 
judge, not the authority of a legislator. Truth comes from God, 


488 OF THE AUTHURITY OF THE CHURCH. [Arr. XX. 


not from the Church. The written word of God is the record of 
God’s truth; and no other record exists. He alone is the Legis- 
lator, and the Scriptures contain the code of laws which He has 
ordained. To maintain those laws and the truth connected with 
them, and, so far as possible, to enforce them, is the duty of the 
Church. But she has no authority either to alter or to add to 
them. 

She may judge therefore, but it must be according to the laws 
which have been made for her. She has authority, but it is an 
authority limited by the Scriptures of truth. 

Such is the nature of all judicial power. We say the judges 
of the land have authority to pronounce judgments ; but they must 
pronounce their judgments according to the law. They have no 
power to alter it, no power to go beyond it. The only power 
which they have, is to enforce and administer; and, where it is 
obscure or doubtful, to do their best to interpret it.’ 

This is exactly the limitation which we find that the Article 
truly assigns to the authority of the Church. She has power to 
decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of 
faith ; but in thus doing: — 

1. She must not ordain anything contrary to God’s word writ- 
ten, nor explain one place of Scripture so as to contradict another. 

2. Besides the written word, she ought not to enforce anything 
to be believed for necessity of salvation. 

The first limitation is self-apparent, if we admit the word of 
God to be the word of God. For whatever authority be assigned 
to the Church, it would be fearful impiety to give it authority 
superior to God Himself. It is probable, that this limitation is 
more particularly intended to apply to the power of ordaining 
ceremonies, as the second applies to articles of faith. If so, it 
means that the Church may ordain ceremonies in themselves in- 
different, but she may not ordain any which would be repugnant 
to the written word. Thus for example, it would mean that forms 
of prayer, clerical vestments, and the like, are within the province 
of the Church to decide upon ; but image-worship, or the adoration 
of the host, being contrary to the commandments of God, are be- 
yond her power to sanction or permit. 

The second limitation applies to doctrine, and is almost a repeti- 
tion of a portion of Article VI. already considered.* It denies to 


1 In the early councils, it was cus- contained the rules by which the deci- 
tomary to place the Gospels on a throne sions of the council must be framed. 
or raised platform in the midst of the 5. “ Holy Scripture containeth all things 
assembly, to indicate that in them were necessary to salvation, so that whatse 


OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 


Sec. IL] 489 


the Church the power to initiate in matters of faith, She may not 
enforce upon her children new articles for which there is no au- 
thority in the Bible ; but may interpret Scripture, and enforce the 
articles of faith to be deduced from thence. 

Hence we may see that the Article determines that there is 
but one supreme primary authority, that is to say, the written tra- 
dition of the will of God, the holy Scriptures, His lively oracles. 
The authority of the Church is ministerial and declaratory, not 
absolute and supreme. And the decisions of the Church must 
always be guided by, and dependent on, the statements and in- 


junctions of the written word of God.1 


ever is not read therein, nor may be 
proved thereby is not to be required of 
any man, or be thought required of any 
man, that it should be believed as an ar- 
ticle of faith, or be thought requisite or 
necessary to salvation.” — Art. vi. 

1 Neither the right nor the duty of Pri- 
vate Judgment, if properly understood, is 
interfered with by the statements of this 
Article. It is the duty of every Chris- 
tian to search the Scriptures in order to 
learn God’s will from them. Yet this 
neither supersedes the propriety of indi- 
viduals paying deference to the judgment 
of the whole Church, nor does it preclude 
the Church from forming a judgment. 
It is the right and the wisdom of every 
citizen to acquaint himself with the laws 
of his country, and to endeavour to render 
them an intelligent obedience. Yet this 
does not take away from a competent 
authority or tribunal the right of pro- 
nouncing according to them. The fol- 
lowing words of an eminent English di- 
vine seem to put the whole question in 


its true light, and in the light in which 
our Church has constantly viewed it: 
“Far am I, by what I have now said, from 
endeavouring to weaken or undermine 
the rights of ecclesiastical authority. We 
do readily acknowledge that every Chris- 
tian Church in the world hasa rightand 
authority to decide controversies in re- 
ligion that do arise among its members, 
and consequently to declare the sense of 
Scripture concerning those controversies. 
And though we say that every private 
Christian hath a liberty left him of exam- 
ining and judging for himself, and which 
cannot, which ought not to be taken from 
him ; yet every member of a Church 
ought to submit to the Church’s deci- 
sions and declarations so as not to oppose 
them, not to break the communion or the 
peace of the Church upon account of 
them, unless in such cases where obedi- 
ence and compliance is apparently sinful 
and against God’s laws.” — Archbishop 
Sharp, Works, v. p. 63. Oxf. 1829. 


[One great difficulty concerning the authority of the Church in matters of faith 


arises from the fact that many people seem to expect to hear the Church speaking with 
definite precise statements in answer to every doubt that may arise, or every question 
we may choose to put to her; or else they imagine that to be what is or ought to be 
claimed by the believers in an authoritative Church. But observe : — 

1. The only Church that claims to possess that kind of authority has contradicted 
herself, repeatedly. (See Janus, “ The Pope and the Council, cap. 111. sect. 3.) 

2. That kind of power was never promised to the Church. (St. Matt. xvi. 18, 
xxviii. 20.) 

3. The promises referred to justify us in expecting a general indefectibility, not a 
special and particular infallibility. 

4. This is all that is possible without a second Incarnation ; for which, accordingly, 
Dr. Manning (The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost) against all facts, contends. 

5. This authority, is not a vague thing of no practical consequence, but covers all 
the essentials of Doctrine and Discipline. 

6. The voice of the Church is not gathered from a single utterance, but from gen- 
eral consent or from a single utterance ratified by general consent according to the 
rule of S. Vincent of Lerins. Common. caps, 11. 111. — J. W.] 


ARTICLE ΧΧΙ. 


--ὁ60--. 


Of the Authority of General Councils. 


GrnERAL Councils may not be gather- 
ed together without the commandment 
and will of Princes. And when they be 
gathered together (forasmuch as they be 
an assembly of men, whereof all be not 
foxpened with the Spirit and Word of 

od), they may err, and sometimes have 
erred, even in things pertaining unto 
God. Wherefore things ordained by 
them as necessary to Salvation have nei- 
ther strength nor authority, unless it 


De Authoritate Conciliorum generalium. 


GrNERALIA concilia sine jussu et volun- 
tate Principum congregari non possunt; 
et ubi convenerint, quia ex hominibus 
constant, qui non omnes Spiritu et Ver- 
bo Dei reguntur, et errare possunt, et 
interdum errarunt etiam in his que ad 
Deum pertinent; ideoque que ab illis 
constituuntur, ut ad salutem necessaria, 
neque robur habent, neque authoritatem, 
nisi ostendi possint e sacris literis esse 
desumpta. 


Dg ΡῈ declared that they be taken out 
of Holy Scriptures. 





[This Article is omitted in the American Revision, “because it is partly ofa 
local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other 
Articles.” Not a very sufficient reason for an unfortunate omission. 

As some persons have argued from the omission, in 1562 and 1571, of Articles 
XLI. and XLII. of 1552, that the Church of England intended to allow Millenari- 
anism and Universalism, so others have urged, that, by omitting this Article, the 
American Church, if it did not assert, at least allowed the infallibility of a General 
Council. The one line of argument is worth as much as the other, both being 
worthless. — J. W.] 





E saw, in considering the last Article, that our Lord Jesus 
Christ had given a certain promise of guidance and inde- 
fectibility to His Church, by which we may conclude, that the 
whole Church shall never utterly fail or be absorbed in one gulf 
of error. We saw too, that the Church had a right to judge in 
controversies of faith, so as to expel from her communion those 
whom she determined to be fundamentally wrong. 

If these premises be true, the voice and judgment of the 
Church universal must be of great value and importance, not as 
superseding but as interpreting Scripture. And this voice of the 
Church has been considered to be audible, in the general consent 
of Christians of all, and more especially of early times, Those 
doctrines which the Church of Christ at all times, everywhere, 
and universally, has received, have been esteemed the judgment 
of the Catholic Church. This is the universality, antiquity, and 


Art. XXL] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 


491 


agreement, the ‘‘ semper, ubique et ab omnibus” of Vincentius 
Lirinensis.! It is true, no doctrine of the faith has been received 
so universally that it never has been spoken or written against. 
But a large number of doctrines (all, in fact, clearly enunciated in 
the Creeds) have been upheld by the vast majority of Christians 
from the beginning to the present day. There never was a time, 
not even the short-lived but fearful reign of Arianism, in which 
the Church in general did not hold all these doctrines; and those 
who dissented from them formed a comparatively small, if not 
always an insignificant, minority. And as regards these funda- 
mental truths, there would never be any difficulty in following the 
rule which Vincentius gives in explanation of his own canon, 
namely, “If a small part of the Church holds a private error, we 
should adhere to the whole. If the whole be for the time infected 
by some novel opinion, we should cleave to antiquity. If in anti- 
quity itself there be found partial error, we should then prefer 
universal decisions before private judgments.” 2 This rule will 
embrace all the Articles of the Creeds of the Church. But new 
errors may arise, and men’s minds may be sadly perplexed by 
them, and difficulties of various kinds may spring up, in which 
the voice of the Christian Church may never have plainly spoken ; 
and the question may almost of necessity occur, Shall the abet- 
tors of such or such an opinion be esteemed heretics or not, be 
continued in, or rejected from, the communion of Christians? In 
such cases, which may be cases of great emergency, the only way 
in which the Church can speak is by a council of representatives. 

Among the Jews, questions of importance and difficulty were 
referred to the Sanhedrim, a council of seventy-one elders, which 
sat at Jerusalem. In the Christian Church, the first example of 
such an assembly is what has by some been called the first general 
council, held by the Apostles and elders and brethren at Jerusa- 
lem, concerning the question of circumcising the Gentile con- 
verts (Acts xv.). 

Afterwards we hear of no council for some considerable period. 
But during the third century several provincial synods sat, for the 


1 Vincentius Lirinens. Commonit. c. 2. 

2 « Quid igitur faciet Christianus Ca- 
tholicus, si se aliqua ecclesie particula 
ab universalis fidei communione precid- 
erit? Quid utique nisi ut pestifero cor- 
ruptoque membro sanitatem universi cor- 
poris anteponat? Quid si novella aliqua 
contagio non jam portiunculam tantum, 
sed totam pariter ecclesiam commaculare 
conetur? Tunc etiam providebit, ut an- 


tiquitati inhereat, que prorsus jam non 
potest ab ulla novitatis fraude seduci. 
Quid si in ipsa vetustate, duorum aut 
trium hominum, vel certe civitatis unius 
aut etiam provincie alicujus error depre- 
hendatur? Tune omnino curabit ut pau- 
corum temeritati vel inscitie si qua sunt 
universaliter antiquitus universalis Con 
cilii decreta preponat,” &¢.— Commonit. 
ο. 8. 


492 OF THE AUTHORITY _ (Arr. XXI 


determining of matters either of doctrine or discipline. Thus 
Victor held a council at Rome, a. Ὁ. 196, concerning the keeping 
of Easter ; in which year other councils were held, in other places, 
on the same subject. St. Cyprian held several councils at Car- 
thage, on the subject of the lapsed, and the rebaptizing of heretics 
(A. Ὁ. 253, 254, 255.) Councils were held at Antioch, a. p. 264, 
265, to condemn and excommunicate Paul of Samosata. And 
many others for similar purposes were convened, in their respective 
provinces, during the third and early part of the fourth century. 
Yet hitherto they were but partial and provincial, not general 
councils of the whole Church. At last, during the disturbances 
which were created by the propagation of the Arian heresy, Con- 
stantine the Great, having been converted to Christianity, and giv- 
ing the countenance of the imperial government to the hitherto 
persecuted Church of Christ, summoned a general council of all 
the bishops of Christendom, to pronounce the judgment of the 
Church Catholic concerning the Divinity of the Son of God. 
The council met a. ἢ. 325. The number of bishops that assembled 
at this great synod is generally stated to have been 318, besides 
priests and deacons. The council decided by an immense majority 
for the doctrine of thé ὁμοούσιον, drew up the Nicene Creed, and 
published twenty canons on matters of discipline. 

1. This was the first general or ecumenical council. Following 
this were -five others, also generally received as cecumenical. 2. 
The council of Constantinople, summoned by the Emperor Theo- 
dosius, A. Ὁ. 381, which condemned Macedonius, and added the lat- 
ter part to the creed of Nice. 8. The council of Ephesus, called 
by the younger Theodosius, a. p. 431, which condemned Nestorius. 
4, The council of Chalcedon, called by Marcianus, a. Ὁ. 451, which 
condemned Eutyches. 5. The second of Constantinople, summoned 
by the Emperor Justinian, a. Ὁ. 553, confirmatory of the councils 
of Ephesus and Chalcedon. 6. The third of Constantinople, con- 
vened by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, a. Ὁ. 680, which 
condemned the Monothelites. 

These six are the only councils which have been acknowledged 
by the Universal Church. There are two or three others, called 
cecumenical by the Greek Church, and many called ecumenical by 
the Latin Church, which, however, have never received universal 
approval.! Even the fifth and sixth have not been quite so univer- 


1 The Greeks number eight general her son Constantine, a. p. 787, and the 
councils, adding to the above six the sec- fourth of Constantinople, a. ἢ. 869, um 
ond council of Nice under Irene and der the Emperor Basil. 


Art. ΧΧΙ] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 498 


sally esteemed as the first four. The fifth, though generally ac- 
knowledged in the East, was for a time doubted by several of the 
Western bishops. Gregory the Great said he reverenced the first 
four synods as he did the four Evangelists; evidently considering 
those four as far more important than those which followed them.! 
And the reformers, both foreign and Anglican, and probably the 
divines of the English Church in general, have more unhesitatingly 
received the first four, than the fifth and sixth councils; though it 
has been thought that the reason for this may be, that the fifth and 
sixth were considered as merely supplementary to the preceding 
two, and therefore as virtually included in them. 

1. These few well-known and unquestioned facts are, of them- 
selves sufficient to give us an insight into the nature, constitution, 
and authority of general councils. In the first three centuries no 
general council was ever held. The reason of this may be mani- 
fold. In the first century Apostles were yet alive, whose inspired 
authority could have been subject to no appeal. Indeed the meet- 
ing of Apostles and elders at Jerusalem may be called a council ; 
but its force is derived, not merely from Christ’s promise of guid- 
ance to His Church, but also from His assurance of inspiration to 
His apostles. Then, too, the Church was small; Jerusalem was the 
visible centre of unity; the Apostles gathered together there could 
readily, by common consent, meet and unite in expression of their 
decisions. Buta century later, and the Church was spread from 
India in the east, to Gaul and Lusitania in the west; from Ethiopia 
southward, to the remotest northern Isles of Britain. There was 
singular difficulty in all its bishops meeting in one spot. A general 
gathering of all the spiritual heads of Christendom would have been, 
like enough, a signal for general persecution. There was no one 
power which could summon all together, and which all would be 
bound to obey.? And therefore it would have been morally, and 
perhaps physically impossible to gather a council from all portions 
of the Church. But when not only was the Roman empire subject 
to one man, but that one man became the patron and protector of 
the Church, his power enabled him to enjoin all bishops who were 
his subjects to meet him, or to send deputies to a general synod ; 
and his safe-conduct assured against the violence, at least of heathen 
persecutors. Hence, by the very nature of the case, general coun- 


1 Gregor. pist. ad. Joann, Constan- the Pope has since claimed and exer- 
tinop. Episc. Epistol. Lib. τ. c. 24. cised ; though this is not the place te 
2 I must assume that the Bishop of prove the assumption. 
Rome had not that supremacy which 


494 OF THE AUTHORITY _ [Art XXI 


cils were at first never summoned, and when summoned, it was by 
“ the commandment and will of princes.” 

Formidable heresies had risen before, but at first they were suffi- 
ciently met by the zeal and energy of catholic bishops; then local 
synods condemned and suppressed them. But the rise of Arianism 
required a more stringent remedy, and a more distinct declaration 
of the voice of the Church. The evils of Arianism were not con- 
fined to Arius and his followers. Macedonians, Nestorians, Euty- 
chians, Monothelites, all sprang out of the same grievous controver- 
sies ; and the six general synods were successively summoned for 
the end of pruning off these various offshoots of the one noxious 
plant. | 
So then general synods were the result of peculiar exigencies, 
and were summoned by the only power which could constrain gen- 
eral obedience, — obedience that is of meeting to deliberate, not, it 
is to be hoped, of deciding according to the imperial standard of 
truth. This constituted them, so far as they were so, general and 
cecumenical. When the Bishop of Rome had attained to the full 
height of his sacerdotal and imperial authority, claiming an universal 
dominion over the Church of Christ, by virtue of succession to the 
primacy of St. Peter; he began to exercise the power, for many 
centuries enjoyed only by the emperors, of calling together general 
councils of the Church, himself presiding in them. The question 
of presidency we may lay aside, as we have to deal only with the 
right tosummon. Now, it is quite true that there was no inherent 
and inalienable right in the Roman emperor, nor in any other sec- 
ular prince, to summon ecclesiastical synods. Therefore the bare 
fact of their being summoned by the emperor, gave them no spe- 
cial authority. But the imperial was the only power which could 
command general obedience. Hence, when the emperor sum- 
moned, all portions of Christendom obeyed ; and so a council, as 
nearly as possible cecumenical, was gathered together. But when 
the Pope claimed the same authority, the result was not the same. 
The bishops of the Roman obedience felt bound to attend, when 
the chief pontiff summoned them ; but the eastern prelates felt no 
such obligation, and the bishops belonging to the ancient patriar- 
chates of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria refused to attend 
to a command issuing from the Patriarch of Rome. The ground, 
therefore, on which this Article asserts that princes only have a 
right to summon general councils is that such only have power to 
compel attendance at them. Neither the Greek nor the reformed 
Churches admit the authority claimed by the Pope, and therefore 


Arr. XXI.] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 495 


their bishops would not assemble at his command. There is no 
single individual governor, nor any ten or twelve ecclesiastical gov- 
ernors, who, if they agree together, could with authority summon 
a council. All bishops are de jure equal and independent, and 
might refuse to obey citations from other bishops; and their refu- 
sals would invalidate the authority of the council called. 

At the time of the Reformation there was a great effort to call 
a free general council. Luther appealed to such. So did our own 
Cranmer. But it was to a real and free council. The pope sum- 
moned the Council of Trent; but the reformers refused to acknow- 
ledge his authority to call it, or to admit that, so called, it was a 
real council of the whole Church. Soon after the Church of Eng- 
land had thrown off the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, decla- 
rations to the above effect were made by English bishops and by 
convocation. The words of the latter are, ‘* We think that neither 


the Bishop of Rome, nor any one prince of what estate, degree, or’ 


preéminence soever he be, may, by his own authority, call, indict, 
or summon any general council, without the express consent, assent, 
and agreement of the residue of Christian princes.” 1 Their argu- 
ment is, that when the Roman emperor had absolute and universal 
control, his commandment alone was sufficient to insure the attend- 
ance of bishops from all quarters of the world. But now there is 
no such supreme authority. The pope claims it; but it is an usur- 
pation. The only conceivable mode of insuring universality now 
would be, that all Christian princes in all parts of Christendom 
should agree together to send bishops to represent their respective 
Churches; and such an agreement would correspond with the an- 
cient mode of convoking councils, as nearly as in the present state 
of things is possible? A supreme spiritual authority, such as is 
claimed by the pope, we do not acknowledge; but as all bishops 
are subject to their respective sovereigns, the joint will of all Chris- 
tian princes might produce an cecumenical synod ; but no other 
plan of proceeding seems likely to do so. 

2. But when councils are gathered together, from whence do 
they derive their authority ? There is no distinct promise of infal- 


1«“The judgment of Convocation con- 
cerning general Councils.” It is signed 
by “ Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cantu- 
ariensis, Johannes London, with thirteen 
bishops; and of abbots, priors, arch- 
deacons, deans, proctors, clerks, and other 
ministers, forty-nine.” See Appendix to 
Cranmer’s Works, 1v. p. 258; also Bur- 
net, Reform. 1. App. B. iii. No. 5; Col- 
lier, Eccl. Hist. 11. App. 2087. 


2 See also “ The Opinion of certain of 
the Bishops and clergy of this realm, 
subscribed with their hands touching 
the general Council,’ probably a. pb. 
1537. Itis signed by Cranmer as arch- 
bishop, eight other bishops, the Abbot 
of Westminster, and three others. — 
Jenkyns’s Cranmer, rv. p. 266. 


i .»ὡώ] 


496 OF TUE AUTHORITY. — (Arr. XXL 


libility to councils in Scripture. Nay! there is probably no distinct 
allusion to councils at all. To the bishops and rulers of the Church 
indeed there is a promise of Christ’s guidance and presence, and 
Christians are enjoined to ‘obey’ and “follow the faith” “of 
those who have the rule over them.” ! Hence the judgment of 
our own spiritual guides is much to be attended to; and when our 
spiritual rulers meet together and agree on matters either of doc- 
trine or discipline, there is no question but that their decisions are 
worthy of all consideration and respect. Yet infallibility is cer- 
tainly not promised to any one bishop or pastor, and though they 
are assured of Christ’s presence and guidance, yet promises of this 
kind are all more or less conditional ; and it is only to the univer- 
sal Church that the assurance belongs, ‘‘ the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it.”” Individual bishops, we know, may err. Hence 
assemblies of individual bishops may err; because, though they 
-have the grace of ordination, yet all may not be pious men, “ gov- 
ened with the Spirit and word of God.” ? 

If indeed all the chief pastors of the Church could meet together 
and all agree, we might perhaps be justified in considering their 
decision as the voice of the universal Church ; and the promises 
of Christ to His Church are such as might lead us to believe that 
that Church could not universally be heretical, and therefore that 
its universal judgment must be sound. But no synod ever had, nor 
perhaps ever can have, such conditions as these. Those hitherto 
held have consisted of a minority of the bishops of the whole 
Church; and most important portions of the Church have been 
but very slenderly represented. Though, therefore, one bishop 
may be supposed to represent many others; yet even in political 
matters we often feel an assembly of deputies to speak but imper- 
fectly the voice of a people, and in ecclesiastical and spiritual things 
this must be much more probable. We cannot say then, that the 
whole Church speaks by the voices of a minority of her bishops, 
even when they are quite agreed. 

Again, it is not quite certain that our Lord’s promises to His 
Church render it impossible that the major part of that Church 
should for a time be corrupted by error. God gave many and 
great promises to Israel; and yet at one time there were but seven 
thousand knees that had not bowed to Baal. The promises indeed 
assure us that the Church shall not become totally corrupt, nor 


1 Heb, xiii. 7, 17. Compare Acts xx. ing of the Article. — Ridley’s eles hg 
28-81; Tit. i. is; iii. 10, &e. , Parker Society edition, Cam 

2 See the sentiments of Bishop Ridley 1841. 
to this effect, corresponding to the word- 


ἌΡ ΤΠ ΠΟ eR 


Art. XXI.] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 497 


continue so finally. But we have seen, that Vincentius himself 
supposes the possibility of the Church for a time being largely, and 
indeed in the greater part of it, led astray by some novelty of doc- 
trine. Now a council composed of a minority of bishops of the 
Church might, in a corrupt age, consist of those very bishops who 
had embraced the novelties, from which the great body of the 
Church was not then exempt. What would then be the value of 
the decisions of such a council? ‘We may perbaps reasonably 
hope, that the gracious and superintending Providence of Christ 
would never allow the Church, which is His Body, and of which 
He is the present and animating Head, to be so represented, or 
misrepresented. But there is nothing in the nature of councils to 
assure us against such an evil. Councils have hitherto always 
consisted of a minority. Even that minority has not always been 
unanimous ; and it might be, that the same minority might repre- 
sent the worse, instead of the sounder part of the Church, in a 
corrupt and ignorant age. 

We hear enough of councils, even in the best ages, to know that 
the proceedings at them have not always been the wisest, or the 
most charitable ; that some of those who attended them were not 
the most highly to be respected ; and that other motives, besides 
zeal for the truth, have had too much influence in them. The 
words of Gregory Nazianzen are famous: “ If I must write the 
truth,” he says, “I am disposed to avoid every assembly of bish- 
ops ; for of no synod have I seen a profitable end ; rather an addi- 
tion to, than a diminution of, evils ; for the love of strife and the 
thirst for superiority are beyond the power of words to express.” ἢ 
Every reader of Church history must feel that there is too much 
truthfulness in this picture. 

The question then arises, of what use are universal synods? 
and what authority are we to assign them? The answer is, that 
so far as they speak the language of the universal Church, and are 
accredited by the Church, so far they have the authority, which 
we saw under the last Article to be inherent in the Church, of 
deciding in controversies of faith. Now we can only know that 
they speak the language of the Church when their decrees meet 
with universal acceptance, and are admitted by the whole body of 
Christians to be certainly true. Every general council which has 
received this stamp to its decisions may be esteemed to speak the 


1 ἔχω μὲν οὕτως. εἰ δεῖ τἀληϑὲς γράφειν, Αἱ γὰρ φιλονεικίαι καὶ diAapyiat* ἀλλ᾽ ae 
ὥστε πάντα σύλλογον φεύγειν ἐπίσκοπων, ὅτι μηδὲ φορτικὸν ὑπολάβῃς οὕτω γράφοντα " καὶ 
μηδεμιᾶς συνόδου τέλος εἶδον χρηστόν * μηδὲ λόγου κρείττονες, κ. τ. 2. — Epist. 55, Pro- 
λύσιν κακῶν μάλλον ἐσχηκυίας, ἢ προσϑῆκην. copio, Tom. 1. p. 814, Colon. 1690. 

ΘΆ 


+. = =F a 
" γ' 
τς 





ΓΑ 


£98 OF THE AUTHORITY [Anr. XXL 


language of the universal Church ; and as in some cases the judg- 
ment of the universal Church could not otherwise have been elic- 
ited, therefore we must admit their importance and necessity. 
Now the first six, or at least the first four, general councils have 
received this sanction of universal consent to their decisions. Their 
decrees were sent round throughout the Christian world; they 
were received and approved of by all the different national 
Churches of Europe, Asia, afid Africa; the errors condemned by 
them were then, and ever have been, counted heresies ; and the 
creeds set forth by them have been acknowledged, reverenced, and 
constantly repeated in the Liturgy, by every orthodox Church 
from that time to this.! 

Thus then the true general synods have received an authority 
which they had not in themselves. “It is,” as the Lutheran 
Confession expresses it, “‘the legitimate way of healing dissension 
in the Church to refer ecclesiastical controversies to synods.” 5. But 
those synods have universal authority only when they receive 
catholic consent. When the Church at large has universally re- 
ceived their decrees, then are they truly general councils, and their 
authority equal to the authority of the Church itself. 

Supposing then a synod to assemble, and to draw up articles of 
doctrine, or rules of discipline, even though it have been legally 
assembled by an authority qualified to convene it, and to insure 
attendance at it, still we hold it possible that it should err, not 
only in its mode of reasoning, or in matters indifferent, but ‘ even 
in things pertaining to God.” Hence, when its decrees came forth, 
especially if they concerned things ‘necessary to salvation,’ we 
should not esteem them to have strength nor authority ‘ until 
they were compared with Holy Scripture, and could be declared 
to be taken out” of it. The council itself would be bound to de- 
cide on the grounds of Scripture, no power having the right to pre- 
scribe anything as ‘‘ requisite or necessary to salvation, which is 
not read therein, nor may be proved thereby.” The Church would 
be bound to examine the decisions of the council itself, on the 
grounds of Scripture, and would not be justified in receiving those 
decisions unless it found that they were “ taken out of Holy Scrip- 
ture.” But when the Church had fully received, and stamped 

! Not only episcopal churches have so see Corfess. August. Art. xx1.; Sy/loge, 
admitted the decrees of the general p. 189; Calvin, Institut. rv. ix. 8, 18. 
councils, but that the reformers and re- 2 “ Hee est usitata et legitima via in 
formed bodies of Christians in Germany, ecclesia dirimendi dissensiones, videlicet 
Switzerland, &c. have admitted them, ad synodos referre controversias ecclesi- 


may appear both from their confessions asticas.”” — Conf. August. ubi supra. 
and the writings of their divines —e. ἡ. 


ates "er 





Art. XXI.] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 499 


with its approval the acts of the council, then would they assume 
the form of judgments of the Church concerning the doctrines of 
Scripture This was the case with the great Councils of Nice 
Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. They put forth their 
decisions as their interpretations of the word of God. They en- 
joined nothing “as necessary to salvation,” but what they ‘ de- 
clared to have been taken out of Holy Scripture.” All Christen- 
dom received their interpretations as sound and true: and, from 
that day to this, they have been admitted by the Catholie Church 
as true articles of faith. This has stamped them with an authority | 
of Scriptural truth, and Catholic consent, of which the constitution 
of the Councils themselves could not give us full certainty and as- 
surance.” 

8. Concerning the assertion of the Article, that ‘‘ some general 
councils have erred,” Bishop Burnet justly observes that it ““ must 
be understood of councils that pass for such.” The later councils 
summoned by the Pope, and acknowledged only by the Western 
Churches and those in obedience ty Rome, were commonly called 
General Councils at the time of the Reformation, as they still 
are in the Roman Church, though never acknowledged by the 
Churches of the East.3 

Of these, the fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent IIT. 
A. ἢ. 1215, asserted the doctrine of Transubstantiation.4 The 
Council of Constance, a. ἢ. 1414, forbade the cup to the laity.® 
The Council of Florence, a. Ὁ. 1439, decreed the doctrine of 
Purgatory. The Council of Trent added to the Nicene Creed a 
confession of belief in seven sacraments, Transubstantiation, Pur- 
gatory, Invocation of Saints, Image-worship, &c. &e. 

The decrees of these councils, though called general, have never 
received the assent of the Eastern Churches, and cannot therefore 
be of universal authority. None of the above-mentioned doctrines, 


1 Calvin, as above referred to, says: 
“‘ Sic priscas illas synodos, ut Niceenam, 
Constantinopolitanam, Ephesinam pri- 
mam, Chalcedonensem, ac similes, que 
confutandis erroribus habit sunt, liben- 
ter amplectimur, reveremurque ut sa- 
crosanctas, quantum attinet δα fidei 
dogmata: nihil enim continent quam 
puram et nativam Scripture interpreta- 
tionem quam sancti patres, spirituali 
prudentia, ad frangendos religionis hos- 
tes, qui tunc emerserant, accommoda- 
runt.” —Institut.1v.ix. 8. Compare Con- 
fess. Helvet. Art. x1.; Sylloge, pp. 41, 42. 

2 On thesubject of the authority of 
general synods, see Palmer, On the Church, 


Part rv. ch. 8; whose view is the same 
as that taken in the text. 

8 According to the Roman Church the 
First Council of Lateran summoned by 
Pope Calixtus II. a. p. 1123, was the 
9th general Council. ‘The other gen- 
eral councils allowed by the Latin Church 
are, Second Lateran, a. ἢ. 1139. Third 
Lateran, 1179. Fourth Lateran, 1215. 
Lyons, 1245. Lyons, 1274. Vienne, 1811. 
Constance, 1414. Basle, 1431. Flor- 
ence, 1489. Fifth Lateran, 1512. Trent, 
1546. 

4 Conc. Lateran, tv. Can. 1. 

5 Sess. ΧΙ. 

® Concil. Florent. De Purgat. 


500 OF GENERAL COUNCILS. . (Arr. XXL 


which they sanctioned, can be found in Scripture, but may all be 
proved to be contrary to Scripture. They are all denied in those 
Articles.of our own Church which we have next to consider, and 
which we shall have to justify from Holy Writ. Hence, we can 
have no difficulty in concluding, that some (so-called) General 
Councils have erred, even in things pertaining to God. 


{ Nore. The statement that General Councils may not be gathered “ without the 
commandment and will of Princes,” probably caused the omission of this Article 
in the American revision. 

It should be remembered, however, that it is aimed against the Papal usurpation, 
and interference with the Civil power. The Pope —as in the famous dispute of 
Boniface VIII. and Philip le Bel — claimed the right of calling the clergy out of the 
several countries in which they lived, without the consent of the civil power, and the 
words above quoted were intended to meet this claim. So Bishop Burnet, Dr. Hey, 
Mr. Hardwicke, and even Mr. Newman in Tract XC. explain them. 

The student should specially bear in mind (a) the proper work of a General 
Council, and (δ) its proper authentication. 

‘Lhe first is, not to invent new Articles of faith, but to testify to, to set forth 
more carefully, and to guard antecedent truth. So that, while it is not an infal- 
lible judge, it may be a faithful witness. The second is found, not in the confirma- 
tion of the Pope or any other person, but in the acceptance of the Council by the 
entire Church. As to the rules laid down by some Romish writers, that a General 
Council must be called by the Pope, that he must preside, &c. they are all confuted 
by a simple reference to the four great General Councils. If those rules are sound, 
they were not General Councils ; if they were General Councils, those rules are un- 
founded. — J. W.] 


ARTICLE XXII. 


Of Purgatory. De Purgatorio. 


Tue Romish doctrine concerning pur- Docrrina Romanensium de purgato- 
gatory, pardons, worshipping and adora- rio, de indulgentiis, de veneratione, tum 
tion, as well of images, as of reliques,and imaginum, tum reliquiarum, necnon de 
also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, invocatione sanctorum, res est futilis, in- 
vainly invented, and grounded upon no aniter conficta, et nullis Scripturarum tes- 
warranty of Scripture, but rather repug- timoniis innititur; immo verbo Dei con- 
nant to the Word of God. tradicit. 





Sxction I.— HISTORY. 


αὶ Ra three preceding Articles concerned the Church visible. 
This treats of the Church invisible. 

The only difference between the wording of this Article and the 
XXIIId of Edward VI. is, that whereas this has “The Romish 
doctrine,” that had ““ The doctrine of the school-authors.”’ 

The Article is so comprehensive that many volumes might be 
written upon it. It will be necessary therefore to study brevity. 
It evidently treats of two principal points. I. Purgatory, and the 
pardons or indulgences connected with the doctrine concerning it. 
II. The Worship of images and relics, and the Invocation of Saints. 


I. 1. Purgatory. 

Under the IIId Article we saw that the Jews and the early 
Christians uniformly believed in an intermediate state between 
death and judgment. But their language and expectations, at 
least those of the earliest fathers, are inconsistent with a belief 
that any of the pious were in a state of suffering, or that the suf- 
ferings of the wicked were but for a time only. 

Clemens Romanus says, that “‘ Those who have finished their 
course in charity, according to the grace of Christ, possess the 
region of the godly, who shall be manifested in the visitation of the 
Kingdom of Christ.’ 1 Justin Martyr says, “ The souls of the godly 
remain in a certain better place, the unjust and wicked in a worse, 

1 ἔχουσιν χώραν εὐσεβῶν. ---- Clem. Ad Cor. τ. 50. 


502 


awaiting the day of judgment. Irenzus argues from the parable 
of Dives and Lazarus, that ‘‘ each sort of men receive, even before 
the judgment, their due place of abode.’’? Tertullian speaks of 
Paradise “as a place of divine pleasantness, destined to receive the 
spirits of the just.”? So Cyprian, “ it is for him to fear death who 
is unwilling to go to Christ.”* ‘ Do not suppose death the same 
thing to the just and the unjust. The just are called to a refresh- 
ing, the unjust are hurried away to torment; speedily safety is 
given to the faithful, to the unfaithful punishment.” ® This, he 
shows, is not peculiar to martyrs or eminent saints. ‘Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, did not suffer martyrdom, yet were honoured 
first among the patriarchs ; and to their company every one is 
gathered, who is believing and righteous and praiseworthy.” ® 
We may, however, early trace a belief that, as death itself was a 
part of the curse, so every one was to look forward, not for the rest 
of the intermediate state, but for the joys of the resurrection; a 
delay of the resurrection, and a continuance of the death of the 
body, being esteemed in itself penal, and the result of sin. Indeed, 
St. Paul (2 Cor. v. 2, 4, 6) taught, that to be unclothed was an 
evil; though it would be better to be ‘absent from the body,”’ since 
thereby we might be “‘ present with the Lord.” Hence, Irenzeus 
speaks of the time between death and judgment as “a period of 
condemnation, resulting from man’s disobedience.” * And Tertul- 
lian says, that “sin, though small in amount, may be to be punished 
by delay of the resurrection: ’’® of which passage more hereafter. 
This leads to the consideration of Prayer for the Dead. There 
can be no question that this custom very early prevailed among 
Christians. It is first mentioned by Tertullian, who speaks of the 
common practice of the Church to make oblations for the dead on 


OF PURGATORY. , [Arr. XXIL 


33} 


6 « Ad quorum convivium congregatur 


1 τὰς μὲν τῶν εὐσεβῶν ψυχὰς ἐν κρείττονΐ 
ποι χώρῳ μένειν, κ. τ. gary ori 228 ; 
Conf. Quest. et Respons. ad Orthodox. .Jus- 
tino Imputat. qu. 5. 

2“Dignam habitationem unamquam- 
que gentem percipere etiam ante judi- 
cium.” — Lib. 11. 68. Compare Lib. v. 
81, quoted above, p. 97. 

8. “Locum divine amonitatis recipi- 
endis sanctorum spiritibus destinatum.” 
— Apol. 1. 47. 

* “ jus est mortem timere qui ad Chris- 
tum nolit ire.’— Cyp. De Mortalitate, Ρ. 
157, Oxon. 1682. 

5 “ Non est quod putetis bonis et malis 
interitum esse communem. Ad refrige- 
rium justi vocantur, ad supplicium rapi- 
untur injusti: datur velocius tutela fiden- 
tibus, perfidis pena.” — Ibid. p. 161. 


quisquis fidelis et justus et laudabilis in- 
venitur.”” — Ibid. p. 163. 

The reasoning of the whole treatise De 
Mortalitate is of the same kind, and quite 
inconsistent with a belief that good men 
going out of this life have a penal state 
to undergo before attaining to rest and 
happiness. 

7 “Ut quemadmodum caput resurrexit 
a mortuis, sic et reliquum corpus omnis 
hominis qui invenitur in vita, impleto 
tempore condemnationis ejus, quae erat 
proper inobedientiam, resurgat.’’— Iren. 
111. 21. 

5 “ Modicum quoque delictum mora res- 
arsegtoula illic luendum.” — De Anima, 
c. 


Sec. I.] OF PURGATORY. 503 


the anniversary of the day of their death, which they called their 
birthday ; who says also, that widows prayed for the souls of their 
husbands that they might have refreshment and a part in the first 
resurrection.!. The like is mentioned by Origen,? Cyprian,® Cyril 
of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen,’ Ambrose,® Chrysostom,’ and 
others of the earliest fathers; and prayers and thanksgivings for 
the dead occur in all the ancient Liturgies, as in that to be found 
in the Apostolical Constitutions, in the Liturgies of St. James, St. 
Mark, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, ὅσ. 

On this early practice, dating unquestionably from the second 
century, the school-authors and the Romanist divines ground one of 
their strongest arguments to prove that a belief in Purgatory was 
primitive and apostolic. For why, say they, were prayers offered 
for the dead, unless they could profit them? and how could they 
profit them, except by delivering from the pains of Purgatory, or 
shortening their duration ? 

Yet it is to be observed, that many of the very prayers allezed 
by the Roman Catholic controversialists do of themselves prove 
that those who composed them could not have believed the persons 
prayed for to be in purgatory. The prayers forthe dead in the an- 
cient Liturgies are offered for all the greatest saints, for the Virgin 
Mary, the Apostles and martyrs, whom even the Roman Church 
has never supposed to be in purgatory. Thus the Clementine Lit- 
urgy, found in the Apostolical Constitutions,’ has the words, “« We 
offer to Thee (7. 6. we pray) for all the saints who have pleased 
Thee from the beginning of the world; the patriarchs, prophets, 
righteous men, apostles, martyrs,” ἄς. The Liturgy called St. 
Chrysostom’s prays for all departed in the faith, patriarchs, prophets, 
apostles, &c.: and “especially for the holy, immaculate, blessed 
Theotokos, and ever-virgin Mary.” This alone is sufficient to 
prove that prayer for the dead did not presuppose Purgatory, and 
was in no degree necessarily connected with it. Indeed, many of 
the ancients who speak of praying for the dead positively declare 
their firm belief that those for whom they prayed were in peace, 
rest, and blessedness, and therefore certainly not in fire and tor- 


1 “« Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natali- 
tiis annua die facimus.”’ — De Corona M:- 
lit. c. 8. “ Pro anima ejus orat, et refri- 


* Catech. Myst. v. 6, 7. 
5 Orat. in Cesar. jurta fin. 
ὁ Epist. 11. 8, Ad Faustinum, 


gerium interim adpostulat ei, et in prima 
resurrectione consortium, et offert an- 
nuis diebus dormitionis ejus.”— De Mo- 
nogamia, c. 10. ᾿ 

2 Lib. rx. In Rom. xii. 

3 ρίξει. 84, Edit. Fell, 39, p. 77. 


7 Hom. 41. in 1 ad Corinth. 

δ Constitut. Apostol. Lib. vi11. cap. 12. 

9 ἐξαιρέτως τῆς mavayiac, ἀχράντου, ὑπε- 
ρευλογημένης δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ 
poate μέθης Mapiac. —Chrysost. Liturg. 

rec, 


504 OF PURGATORY. . 


ment ;! and it is not too much to affirm, that none of the ancient 
prayers had anything like an allusion to a Purgatory. Nay, even 
in the ancient Roman missals were the words, ‘“* Remember, O 
Lord, Thy servants which have gone before us with the sign of 
faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace; To them, O Lord, and to all 
that are in rest in Christ, we beseech Thee to grant a place of 
refreshment, of light and peace.” 2 

It has been so common to admit the false premiss of the Ro- 
manist divines, (namely, that prayer for the dead presupposes a Pur- 
gatory,) that it is to many minds difficult to understand on what 
principles the early Christians used such prayers. One of those 
principles was, doubtless, that all things to us unknown are to us 
future. Present and future are but relative ideas. To God noth- 
ing is future; all things are present. But to man, that is future 
of which he is ignorant. As then we know not with absolute 
certainty the present condition or final doom of those who are de- 
parted; their present condition is relatively, and their final doom, 
absolutely, future to our minds. Hence, it was thought, we are 
justified in praying that it may be good, even though the events 
of their past life may have already decided it. Again, the Resur- 
rection is yet to come, and therefore the full bliss of the departed 
is yet future. Hence the ancients prayed for a hastening of the 
Resurrection, much in the spirit of our own Burial Service, and 
of the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come.” ὃ 
Thus St. Ambrose prayed for the Emperors Gratian and Valen- 
tinian, that God would “raise them up with a speedy resurrec- 
tion.” 4 And the Liturgies constantly ask a speedy and a happy 
resurrection to those who have died in the Lord® 

Another portion of these prayers was Eucharistic or thanks- 
giving ; whereby they gave God thanks both for the martyrs and 
for all that had died in the faith and fear of God;® and these com- 


(Arr. XXII. 


1 See this shown in very numerous 


simos juvenes matura resurrectione sus- 
instances by Archbishop Usher, Answer Ὶ 


cites et resuscites.””— Ambros. De Obit 


toa Jesuit, ch. vi1., and by Bingham, Z. 
A. Bk. xv. ch. 111. § 16. 

2“ Memento etiam, Domine, famulo- 
rum famularumque tuarum, gui nos pre- 
cesserunt cum signo fidei, et dormiunt in 
somno pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omni- 
bus in Christo quiescentibus, locum ref- 
rigerii lucis et pacis ut indulgeas depre- 
camur,”— Bibi, Patr. Gr. Lat. Tom. 11. 
p. 129, quoted by Usher and Bingham, 
as above. 

ὃ See Bp. Bull, Sermon 111. Works, 
tp. 71, Oxf. 1827. 

4 “Te queso, summe Deus, ut charis- 


Valentini, in ipso fine; Usher, as above. 

5 See numerous examples, quoted by 
Usher as above. 

6 “The term of εὐχαριστῆριος εὐχὴ, ‘a 
thanksgiving prayer,’ I borrow from the 
writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 
(Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch. cap. v11.) who, 
in the description of the funeral observ- 
ances used of old inthe Church, inform- 
eth us, first, that the friends of the dead 
accounted him to be, as he was, blessed, 
because that, according to his wish, he 
had obtained a victorious end, and there- 
upon sent forth hymns of thanksgiving to 


Sec. I.] OF PURGATORY. 


505 
memorations of the departed were thought most important, as tes- 
tifying a belief in the doctrine of “the Communion of Saints,” 
and that the souls of those who are gone hence are still living, still 
fellow-heirs of the same glory, and fellow-citizens of the same king- 
dom with ourselves.1 

These were the chief reasons for prayers for the dead in public 
Liturgies. In the more private devotions, the solicitude which 
had existed for beloved objects whilst on earth was still expressed 
for their souls, when they had gone hence and were in the middle 
state of the dead. For, though they held that “‘ what shall be to 
every one at the day of judgment is determined at the day of his 
death,” ? yet they thought it not unreasonable to pray that even 
those who they hoped were safe might not lose that portion of 
blessedness which they supposed to be in store for them.* There 
were also some private opinions,—as that the ‘more abundant 
damnation’ of the damned might be lessened,*— that there was 
a first resurrection, at which some eminent saints rose before the 
rest, and to this they prayed that their friends might attain,® — that 
all men, even the best and holiest, had at the day of judgment a 
baptism of fire to go through, which should try their works, even 
though they should be saved in it: of which baptism more pres- 
ently. Such private and particular opinions influenced the prayers 
of those who adopted them; but they were all unconnected with 
the doctrine of purgatory.® 

The prayers for the dead, thus early prevalent, were in process 
of time, in the Roman Church, converted into prayers for souls 
in purgatory. At the beginning of the Reformation, it was first 
proposed to eradicate all traces of this doctrine from the Liturgies, 
but to retain such prayers for the dead as were accordant with 
primitive practice and belief. Accordingly, the first Liturgy of 
Edward VI. contained thanksgiving for all those saints ‘‘ who now 
do rest in the sleep of peace,” prayer for their ‘‘ everlasting peace,” 


the Author of that victory, desiring that 
they themselves might come unto the 
like end.’ — Usher, as above. 

1 Epiphan. Heres. LXxXy. n. VII. 

2 « Quod enim in die judicii futurum 
est omnibus, hoe in singulis die mortis 
impletur.”— Hieronym. Jn Joel, cap. 2; 
Usher, Ibid. 

8 See this exemplified in the prayer of 
St. Augustine for his mother Monica. — 
Confess. Lib. 1x. cap. 18, quoted by Bing- 
ham, Lib. xv. ch. 1π|. ὃ 16. 

* “Ut tolerabilior sit damnatio.’? — 
Aug. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. cx. Bing- 
ham, Ibid. 

64 


5 This was a Millenarian opinion, and 
was held by Tertullian. —De Monogam. 
cap. 10; Cont. Marcion. Lib. 111. cap. 25; 
Bingham, Ibid. 

6 The student should by all means read 
Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, ch. vit. 
Prayer for the Dead ; and Bingham, Bk. 
xv. ch. 111. §§ 15, 16. See also Field, Of 
the Church, Bk. 111. ο. 9, 17; Jer. Tay- 
lor, Dissuasive from Popery, pt. 1. ch. 1. 
δ 1v.; Bramhall, Answer to ©. De la Mille- 
tiere, τ. Ὁ. 59, of the Anglo-Catholic Li- 
brary ; Bull’s Works, τ. Serm. 111. &e. 


506 OF PURGATORY. 


and that “at the day of the general resurrection all they which 
be of the mystical body of the Son, might be set on His right 
hand.” But the reformers afterwards, fearing from what had 
already occurred that such prayers might be abused or miscon- 
strued, removed them from the Communion and Burial services. 
Yet still we retain a thanksgiving for saints departed, a prayer 
that we, with them, may be partakers of everlasting glory, and a 
request that God would “complete the number of His elect, and 
hasten His kingdom, that we, with all those who are departed out 
of this life in His faith and fear, may have our perfect consumma- 
tion and bliss in His eternal and everlasting glory.” Such com- 
memorations of the dead sufficiently accord with the spirit of the 
primitive prayers, without in any degree laying us open to the 
danger that ill-taught or ill-thinking men might found upon them 
doctrines of deceit or dangerous delusions. 

We have seen then, that the doctrine of the ancients concern- 
ing the intermediate state was inconsistent with a belief in purga- 
tory, and that their custom of praying for the dead had no con- 
nection with it. Yet we may trace the rise of the doctrine itself 
by successive steps from early times. 

In the first two centuries there is a deep silence on the sub- 
ject. At the end of the second, Tertullian considered that Para- 
dise was a place of divine pleasantness appointed to receive the 
souls of the just.1_ But early in the third century, Tertullian had 
left the Church, and joined the Montanists ; and there is a passage 
in one of his treatises, written after he became a Montanist, which 
deserves attention. In that treatise (De Anima) he indeed clearly 
speaks of all the righteous as detained in inferis, waiting in Abra- 
ham’s bosom the comfort of the resurrection;? and says, that 
doubtless in the intermediate state (penes inferos) are punishments 
and rewards, as we may learn from the parable of Dives and 
Lazarus. This appears inconsistent with any purgatorial notion ; 
yet some consider that he had an idea of the kind, because he ex- 
plains twice in this treatise the words, “Thou shalt not come out 
thence till thou hast paid the very last farthing,” to mean, that 
even “small offences are expiated by delay of resurrection.” * He 


(Art. XXIL 


. 1. 45, quoted above. “ΤῊ summa carcerem illum quem evan- 


ertull. De Anima, δῦ. 

: Ibid. 58. 

“Ne, . judex te tradat angelo exe- 
cutionis, et ille te in carcerem mandet 
inferum, unde non dimittaris, nisi mod- 
ico quoque delicto mora _ resurrectionis 
expenso.” — Ibid. 85. 


gelium demonstrat inferos intelligimus, 
et novissimum quadrantem, modicum 
i. ue delictum mora _ resurrectionis 
illic luendum interpretamur ; nemo dubi- 
tabit animam aliquid pensare penes infe- 
ros salva resurrectionis plenitudine per 
carnem quoque.” — Ibid. 58. 


Sec. 11] OF PURGATORY. 


507 


seems, however, to consider that they will be more fully punished 
at the judgment.! And even this interpretation of Scripture, which 
is evidently very different from the doctrine of purgatory, he says 
that he derived, not from the teaching of the Church, but from 
Montanus.? 

Contemporary with Tertullian, though somewhat his junior, was 
Origen. If Tertullian derived a notion somewhat resembling pur- 
gatory from a heretic, Origen derived a notion also bearing some 
resemblance to it from a heathen. His views of the nature of the 
human soul were borrowed from Plato. He believed it to be im- 
mortal and preéxistent, always in a state of progress or decline, 
and ever receiving the place due to its attainments in holiness, or 
defection to wickedness. Hence, he did not believe the purest 
souls of the redeemed, or the holy angels themselves, incapable of 
sinning, nor the very devils out of all hope of recovery.? | In ac- 
cordance with this theory, he was obliged to consider that all the 
pains of the damned were merely purgatorial, and that their sins 
would be expiated by fire. To this he applied those passages of 
Scripture which speak of “a fiery trial,” and of the fire as to ‘ try 
every man’s work of what sort it is” (1 Cor. iii, 13-15). He 
held that at the day of judgment all men must pass through the 
fire, even the saints and prophets. As the Hebrews went through 
the Red Sea, so all must pass through the fire of the judgment. 
As the Egyptians sank in the sea, so wicked men shall sink in the 
lake of fire: but good men, washed in the blood of the Lamb, even 
they, like Israel, must pass through the flood of flame ; but they 
shall go through it safe and uninjured.® All must go to the fire. 
The Lord sits and purifies the sons of Judah. He who brings 


1 See the concluding words in the last- sages above quoted from his treatise De 


Mortalitate. 


cited passage. 

2 « Hoe enim Paracletus (ἢ. 6. Monta- 
’ nus) frequentissime commendavit, si quis 
sermones ejus ex agnitione promissorum 
charismatum admiscuit.’’— Ibid. 

There is a passage in Cyprian (pist. 
55 ad Antonian. p. 109, Oxf. 1682) from 
which it is supposed that he adopted this 
view of Tertullian, whom he called “ his 
Master.” Rigaltius has shown that the 
language thus used by Cyprian applies to 
the penitential discipline of the Church, 
not to a purgatorial fire after death. It 
is true, the wording of this passage looks 
like ‘Tertullian’s reasoning. But Cyp- 
rian’s language is so constantly opposed 
to the notion of purgatory, that itis scarce- 
ly possible that he should have consist- 
ently held that doctrine. See the pas- 


So the following : “ Quod in- 
terim morimur, ad immortalitatem morte 
transgredimur ; nec potest vita eterna 
succedere, nisi hine contigerit exire. 
Non est exitus iste, sed transitus: et tem- 
porali itinere decurso, ad eterna transgres- 
sus.”— De Mortalitate, 12, p. 164. “Am- 
plectamur diem, qui assignat singules 
domicilio suo, qui nos istine ereptos, et 
laqueis sxcularibus exsolutos Paradiso 
restituit et regno.”’ — Ibid. 14, p. 166. 

3 De Principiis, Lib. 1. cap. 6, n. 8, 
Hieronym. Jn Jone Proph. ec. 111.; Au- 


gustin. De Civit. Dei, Lib. xx1. ec. 17, 
on vir. 087. See Laud against Fisher, 
§ 38. 


* Origen, De Principiis, Lib. 11. cap. 
10, n. 5; Homil. in Levitic. vii. n. 4. 
5 Hfomil. ur. in Ps. xxxvi. num. 1 


508 OF PURGATORY. _ [Arr ΧΧΠ, 


much gold with little lead, shall have the lead purged away, and 
the gold shall remain uncorrupted. The more lead there is, the 
more burning there will be. But if a man be all bende; he shall ᾿ 
sink down into the abyss, as lead sinks in the water. 

This theory of Origen is so far from being the same with the 
Romanist’s purgatory, that, first of all, he places it instead of hell ; 
and secondly, so far from looking for it between death and the res- 
urrection, he taught that it would take place after the resurrection, 
at the day of judgment. Yet to this speculation, the offspring of 
human reason and Platonic philosophy, we may trace the rise of 
the doctrine on which the Church of Rome has erected so much 
of her power, and which has been so fatally pregnant with super- 
stition. The theories of Origen were interesting, his character 
and learning were captivating ; and so his name and opinions had 
much weight with those who followed him. Accordingly, we find 
eminent writers both in the East and West embracing his specula- 

tions. Lactantius held all judgment to be deferred till the resur- 
rection ; then eternal fire should consume the wicked, but it should 
try even the just. Those who had many sins would be scorched 
by it, but the pure would come off scathless.2 Gregory Nazian- 
zen, with the same idea, speaking of various kinds of baptism, 
Moses’s baptism, Christ’s baptism, the martyr’s baptism, the bap- 
tism of penitence, adds, “and perhaps in the next world men will 
be baptized with fire, which last baptism will be more grievous 
and of longer duration, which will devour the material part like 
hay, and consume the light substance of every kind of sin.”® Am- 
brose again, using almost the words of Origen, says, “" that all must 
pass through the flames, even St. John and St. Peter.’* And 
elsewhere he adopts Origen’s illustration of the Israelites and 
Egyptians passing through the Red Sea, comparing it with the 
passage of all men through the fire of judgment.’ Hilary too 
speaks of all, even the Virgin Mary, as to undergo the trial of fire 
at the day of judgment, in which souls must expiate their offences.® 
Gregory Nyssen in like manner speaks of “a purgatorial fire after 
our departure hence,” and of “the purging fire, which takes 
away the filth commingled with the soul.” 7 


1 Homil. in Exod. vi. num. 4. 5 In Psal. 86. 

® Lactant. vir. 21. 6 « Cum ex omni otioso verbo en 

8 τυχόν ἐκεῖ τῷ πυρὶ βαπτισϑήσονται τῷ simus prestituri, diem judicii pei το 
τελευταίῳ βαπτίομανε. τῷ ἐπιπονωτέρῳ καὶ cemus, in quo subeunda sunt gravia 
μακροτέρῳ, ὁ ἐσϑίει τὸν χόρτον, τὴν Show, wat een a tis anime supplicia,” 
δαπανᾷ πάσης κακίας κουφότητα. — Greg. — Hilar. In Ps, Ps. 118, lit. Gimel. 
Nazianz. Oratio xxxtx. a igre μετὰ τὴν ἐνϑένδε πὲ μα τε y= ἀκ. διὰ τῆς 

* Serm. XX. in Psal. poet aad Ae πυοὺς xwveiac. — Orat. De 


a ὉρορΠρᾳ«βοὁ0οΠρΟ Το 


Sec. I.] OF PURGATORY. 509 


All these views spring from the same source, and tend to the 
same conclusion. They arise from Origen’s interpretation of 1 
Cor. iii. 13-15 ; and they imply a belief, not in a purgatory be- 
tween death and resurrection, but in a fiery ordeal through which 
all must pass at the day of judgment, which will consume the 
wicked, but purify the just. 

We come now to St. Augustine. His name is deservedly had 
in honour, and his opinions have borne peculiar weight. He too, 
like Origen and Ambrose, speaks of the fire of judgment, which is 
to try men’s works. But he goes further still. In commenting 
on the passage of St. Paul, so often referred to, (1 Cor. iii, 11- 
15,) he says, that if men have the true foundation, even Jesus 
Christ, though they may not be pure from all carnal affections and 
infirmities, these shall be purged away from them by the fire of 
tribulation, by the loss of things we love, by persecution, and in 
the end of the world by the afflictions which antichrist should 
bring; in short, by the troubles of this life. But then he adds, 
that some have supposed that after death some further purging by 
fire was awaiting them who were not fully purified here, and he 
says, “1 will not argue against it; for perhaps it is true.”? He 
does not set it forth as an article of faith. He does not speak of 
it as a doctrine of the Church. He does not propound it as an 
acknowledged truth. He does not lay it down as a settled opinion. 
He merely alleges it as a probable conjecture. He holds it to be 
uncertain, whether all tribulation is to be borne here, or some 
hereafter ; or whether some hereafter instead of some here. But 
he thinks perhaps some such opinion is true. He says at least, it 
is not incredible. The very mode in which he sets forth his doubts 
and queries shows that no certain ground could be taken upon the 
subject, as deduced from undoubted language of Scripture, or 
primitive teaching of the Church. In fact, he acknowledges the 


Mortuis, Tom. 111. 
τοῦ καϑαρσίου πυρὸς ab 


ee τῇ vend 
ῥύπον ἐμ πέρ. erage -- 


. 634, Paris, 1638. portaverunt, sive ibi tantum, sive ideo hic 
ut non ibi, secularia, quamvis a damna- 


tione venialia concremantem ignem tran- 


Ρ. 635. See 
Laud against Fisher, 
1 De Cieitate Dei do ‘4, xx. 25, Tom. 
vit. pp. 487, 6 
2 “ Post ie sane corporis mortem, 
donec ad illum veniatur, qui post resur- 
rectionem corporum futurus est damna- 
tionis ultimus dies, si hoc temporis inter- 
vallo spiritus defunctorum ejusmodi ig- 
nem dicuntur perpeti, quem non sentiant 
illi qui non habuerunt tales mores et 
amores in hujus corporis vita, ut eorum 
ligna, foenum, stipula consumatur ; alii 
vero sentiant qui ejusmodi secum edificia 


sitorie tribulationis inveniant, non redar- 
guo, quia forsitan verum est.”” — De Civit, 
Dei, xxi. 26, Tom. vii. p.649, 

3 « Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam 
fieri, incredibile non est, et utrum ita sit queri 
potest, et aut inveniri aut latere, nonnullos 
fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium 
quanto. magis minusve bona pereuntia 
dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusque sal- 
vari.” — Enchiridion ad. Laurent. cap. 69, 
Tom. vi. p. 222. See also De ide et 
Operibus, cap. 16, Tom. γι. p. 180. 


OF PURGATORY. .  [Arr. XXIL 


510 


great difficulty of the passage in St. Paul, simply speaks of the 
purgatorial view as having been suggested, and thinks it not impos- 
‘ sible or improbable. In this form of it, it was in fact an evident 
novelty in the days of St. Augustine. 

A century and a half later, Pope Gregory I. laid it down dis- 
tinctly, that “‘ there is a purgatorial fire before the judgment for 
lighter faults.” ? From this time a belief in purgatory rapidly 
gained ground in the Western Church. Visions and apparitions 
of the dead were appealed to, as witnesses for the existence of a 
state of purgation for those souls who were detained in prison wait- 
ing for the judgment. Thomas Aquinas and other schoolmen dis- 
cussed the subject with their usual ingenuity, and more fully ex- 
plained the situation of purgatory, its pains, and their intensity. 
But the Greek Church, divided from the Latin on other points, 
was never agreed with it on this. 

In the year 1431 met the synod of Basle, which promised much 
reformation, and effected none. Thither a deputation had come 
from the Emperor of Constantinople ; and by it a hope was excited 
that the breach between the two long-divided branches of the 
Church might now be healed. Eugenius IV. Bishop of Rome, 
who at first endeavoured in 1437 to translate the Council of Basle 
to ‘Ferrara, now strove to remove it to Florence (A. Ὁ. 1439). 
Only four of the Bishops left Basle at his command, the rest con- 
tinuing their sitting there till 1448, forming a council acknowledged 
as cecumenical by great part of Europe, though opposed to the 
pope. However, several Italian bishops met at Florence, and were 
joined by the Greek emperor and some bishops from the East. In 
this synod the Greek deputies were induced to acknowledge, that 
the Bishop of Rome was the primate and head of the Church, 
that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and 
that there is a purgatory. These decrees were signed by about 
sixty-two Latin bishops, by John Palxologus the emperor, and by 
eighteen Eastern bishops. On their return to Constantinople the 
Greek prelates were received with the greatest indignation by those 


1 We must by no means imagine that 
the fathers uniformly interpreted this pas- 
sage of the Corinthians either of a purga- 
torial fire at judgment, or before the judg- 
ment. For example, St. Chrysostom 
distinctly expounds it of a probatory, 
not a purgatory fire; and understands 
that those who suffer loss are those who 
are damned eternally, and that their “ be- 
ing saved yet so as by fire” means that 
they shall be preserved from annihila- 


tion, not from suffering by the fire. — 
See Hom. 1x. in 1 Corinth. 

2 “De quibusdam levibus culpis esse 
ante judicium purgatorius ignis creden- 
dus est.””— Gregor. Dial. Lib. rv. cap. 
89. Also Ja Psalm, iii. Panitent. in prin- 
cip.: Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. γι. ; 
Laud against Fisher, § 38. 

8 See Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive Po- 
pery, pt. 1. ch. 1. § 4, Vol. x. p. 160, Works, 
London, 1822. 


Sec. [.] OF PURGATORY. 511 


whom they might be supposed to represent. The decrees of Flor- 
ence were utterly and most summarily rejected in the East, the 
synod was altogether repudiated, and has never since been rec- 
ognized. The patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, 
who were represented by deputies in the council, joined in the 
protest against it. To this day the Eastern Church has never 
acknowledged it, nor does it accept any of its decrees, whether con- 
cerning the Procession, the Pope, or Purgatory.! 

The Council of Trent, a. Ὁ. 1563, professing to be * taught by 
the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, and tradition of the fathers,” de- 
creed, that there is a purgatory, and that souls there detained are 
aided by the sacrifice of the altar. It, however, forbade the people 
to be troubled with any of the more subtle questions on the sub- 
ject? 

The divines of the Church of Rome have not been so careful 
as the council to avoid entering into minute discussion. Bellar- 
mine has a whole book on the circumstances of purgatory. In 
this, he first discusses for whom purgatory is reserved. Then he 
argues that souls there detained can neither merit nor sin ; then, 
that they are sure of salvation. Then he resolves the question, 
Where is purgatory? Next he discusses, whether souls pass 
straight from purgatory to Heaven, or whether there be a Paradise 
besides. He discusses how long purgatory lasts, of what nature is 
its punishment, whether its fire is corporeal, (which he solves in 
the affirmative, ) whether demons torment the souls there, (which 
he leaves in doubt). And lastly, he teaches how prayers aid the 
souls in purgatory, and what kind of prayers they should be.? 

2. Pardons or Indulgences. 

These, in the sense intended by this Article and taught by the 
Church of Rome, sprang out of the doctrine of Purgatory. 

In the Primitive Church, when Christians had lapsed in persecu- 
tion, or otherwise incurred the censure of the Church, it was not 
uncommon for the bishops to relax the penances which had been 
enjoined on them, either when there was danger of death, or at the 
intercession of the martyrs or confessors in prison, or from some 
other worthy cause. Very early, the custom of martyrs interced- 
ing appears to have been abused; and the high esteem in which 
martyrdom was held, led to the precipitate reception of their prayers 


1 Coneil. Tom. x111.; Fleury, τῖν.: 2 Sess. xxv. Decretum de Purgatorio. 
Gibbon, ch. txvi. uxvit.; Usher, as 8 Bellarmin. De Purgatorio, Lib. 11. 
above ; ok PN On the Church, pt.1v.ch. 4 Tertullian Ad Martyres, c. 1.; Cypr. 
x1. δῦ Ep. 15 ad Martyres ; Euseb. H. E. v. 2. 


§12 OF PURGATORY. 


for offenaers, to the interruption of the right discipline of the 
Church.! 

The Council of Ancyra, and, soon after, the Council of Nice, 
gave bishops express authority to restore offenders to communion, 
and to shorten the term of their penitential probation, on consid- 
eration of past good conduct or present tokens of true repentance.? 
This was reasonable enough. But all good is liable to abuse. In 
process of time, liberal almsgiving was accepted in lieu, or at least 
in mitigation of penance; the beginning of which custom is 
charged, though probably without justice, on our own Archbishop 
Theodore.* Here was a loop-hole for all evil to creep in. The 
subsequent sale of indulgences easily rose out of the permission to 
substitute charity to the poor or to the Church for mortification 
and humiliation before God. 

But the obtaining of such exemptions is a wholly different thing 
from the modern doctrine of the Roman Church concerning indul- 
sences. Indulgences indeed now are said to be exemptions from 
the temporal punishment of sins. But in the term temporal punish- 
ment are included not only Church-censures, but the pains of pur- 
gatory ; and it is held, that the Bishop of Rome has a store or 
treasure of the merits of Christ and of the saints, which, for suffi- 
cient reasons, he can dispense, either by himself or his agents, to 
mitigate or shorten the sufferings of penitents, whether in this 
world or the world to come ;* this power not, of course, extending 
to the torments of hell, which are not among the temporal punish- 
ments of sin. Some of the Roman Catholic divines acknowledge 
that no mention of such indulgences is to be found in Scripture or 
_ in the fathers. Many of the schoolmen confess that their use 
began in the time of Pope Alexander III., at the end of the 
twelfth century. Indeed, before this time, it is hardly possible to 
discover any traces of them. The first jubilee, or year of general 
indulgence, is said to have been kept in the pontificate of Boniface 


(Arr. XXIL 


VIII., 1300 years after Christ. 


was issued by Pope Clement VI. 


1 See Tertullian, De Pudicit. c. 22. 

2 Concil. Ancyran. Can. y.; Concil. 
Nicen. 1. Can. x11.; Marshall’s Peniten- 
tial Discipline, ch. 111. § 2. 

ὃ Theodore became Archbishop of 
Canterbury, a. ἡ. 670. The custom of 
purchasing exemption of penance by 
almsgiving can be proved to be of great- 
er antiquity than this. See Marshall, as 
above. 

*“Recte Clemens VI. Pont. in Con- 
stitutione, Extravagantis, que incipit 


And the famous bull, Unigenitus, 
fifty years: after the first jubilee, 


Unigenitus . . . . declaravit, extare in 
Eccl. thesaurum spiritualem ex passioni- 
bus Christi et sanctorum contlatum.” — 
Bellarmin. De Jndulgentiis, Lib. 1. cap. 2. 

“ Restat igitur ut passiones sanctorum, 
si ullo ah dispensari debeant, extra 
sacramentum solum, idque per solutio- 
nem solius reatus pene temporalis dis- 
pensari debeant.” — Ibid. cap. 3. 

See also cap. 10, where Indulgences 
are shown to apply either to penance in 
this life or purgatorial pains in the next. 


ew ~— ee Oe  ᾿ Ra A 


Sxc. 1.1 OF PURGATORY. 513 


a. Ὁ. 1850.1 It was not without discussion and opposition that 
this custom grew and prevailed.2 It reached its greatest height of 
corruption in the Pontificate of Leo X., when Tetzel, the agent 
of that pope, openly selling indulgences in Germany, roused the 
spirit of Luther, and so hastened the Reformation. This led to 
more formal discussion and consideration of the grounds of it. 
The Council of Trent decreed, that ‘ the treasures of the Church 
should not be made use of for gain, but for godliness.”*® It de- 
clared, that “the power of granting indulgences was given by 
Christ to His Church,” that, according to ancient usage, “it is to 
be retained in the Church;” and it anathematizes those ‘*‘ who 
assert that indulgences are useless, or that the Church cannot 
grant them.” Yet it enjoins moderation in their use, lest “ by 
too great facility in granting them ecclesiastical discipline be ener- 
vated ;’* and forbids all abuses, whereby profit has been sought by 
them, and through which scandal has arisen from heretics.* 


Il. 
relics.” 

We have strong testimony from the earliest times against 
anything like image-worship, or the use of images or pictures, for 
the exciting of devotion. Irenzus speaks of it as one of the errors 
of some of the Gnostics, that they had images and pictures, which 
they crowned and honoured, as the Gentiles do, professing that the 
form of Christ, as He was in the flesh, was made by Pilate.5 
Clement of Alexandria repeatedly speaks of’ the impropriety of 
making an image of God, the best image of whom is man created 
after His likeness. Origen quotes Celsus as saying that Chris- 
tians could not “ bear temples, altars, and images ;” and proceeds 
tu justify the forbidding of statues and images, showing that Chris- 
tians rejected them on a higher principle than the Scythians and 
nomad tribes of Libya.’ He contends, that it is folly to make 
images of God, whose best image are those virtues and graces 
which the Word forms within us, and by which we imitate Him, 


1. “.Worshipping and adoration as well of images as of 


1 Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive from Popery, 
ch. 1. § 8, Vol. x. p. 188; Bellarmin. me 
Indulgentiis, Lib. 1. cap. 2. 

2 See Bp. Taylor, as above, who refers 
to Franciscus de Mayronis and Iurandus 
as having disputed against it. See also 
Bellarmine, as above. 

ὃ Sess. XXI. cap. Ix. 

* Sess. xxv. Decretum de Indulgentiis. 

5 Tren. Adv. Her. 1.24, ad finem. Comp. 
Epiphan. Heres. xxvit. ἢ. 6, who charges 


65 


the Carpocratians with worshipping im- 
ages of Christ, together with those of the 
philosophers, as the Gentiles do. Se 
Augustine (Heres. v11.) accuses them: 
of worshipping images of our Lord, of 
St. Paul, Homer, and Plato. 

8 Strom. Lib. v. 5, Tom. 11. p. 662, Lib. 
vi. 18, cg ngs p. 825, Lib. vir. 5; Tom, 
Il. p. 845, & 

T Cont. Cols. Lib. vir. 62, seg. 


614 OF PURGATORY. [Arr XXIL 


the ‘ First-born of every creature,” in whom, of all things, is the 
highest and noblest image of the Father.!. So Minucius Felix asks 
“ What should I form as an image of God, when, if you think 
rightly, man is himself God’s image ?” ? Exactly i in like manner 
argues Lactantius: ‘“‘That is not God’s image which is made 
with man’s fingers, with stone or brass: but man himself, who 
thinks and moves and acts;” and he says, “it is superfluous te 
make images of gods, as if they were absent, when we believe 
them to be present.” ® Athanasius as plainly condemns the adora- 
tion of images, whether in their use the Supreme Being be to be 
worshipped, or only angels and inferior intelligences.‘ 

The Romanist divines lay great stress on the early mention of 
the use of the sign of the cross and of emblematical figures. But, 
how far either of these are from resemblance to the later use of 
images, it is impossible that any one can be unmindful. Symbols 
of the faith were unquestionably very early adopted, perhaps from 
the very first ; and have been retained, not only in the Anglican, 
but in the Lutheran and other reformed communions. 

Tertullian speaks of the symbol, on a chalice, of the Good 
Shepherd carrying the lost sheep on his shoulders. This was not 
even a figure of our Saviour, but merely an emblem of Him; and 
this is the only instance ever mentioned by writers of the first 
three centuries. The sign of the cross, we learn from the same 
father, was constantly made by the first Christians on their fore- 
heads, at their going out and coming in, at meals, at bathing, at 
lying down and rising up; and all this, he says, had. been handed 
down by ancient custom and tradition. But though they thus 
used the sign of the Cross, to remind them of Him who was cru- 
cified, it was not to worship it. ‘ We neither worship crosses, nor 
wish for them,” says Minucius Felix ;7 for the heathens had charged 
upon Christians that they paid respect to that instrument of pun- 
ishment which they deserved. But the cross was esteemed em- 
blematical of the doctrine of the Cross, and a badge to distinguish 
Christian from heathen men. If ever the early Christians were 
likely to have worshipped the cross, it was when the Empress 
Helena, mother to Constantine the Great, found, or thought she 
found the true cross on which our Lord was crucified. But how 
little was this the case, we learn from the words of St. Ambrose. 


1 Cont. Cels. Lib. vit. 18. 5 De Pudicit. c. 7. 
2 Minue. Felic. Octavius, p. 818. Lugd. 6 De Corona M. c. 8. 
Batav. 1672. ᾿ 7 Octav. p. 284. 
8 Instit. τι. 2. 8 Ibid. p. 86; Tertull. Apol. ο. 16. 


* Orat. cont. Gentes. Tom. 1. p. 22, Col. 
1686. 


Sec. 11 OF PURGATORY. 


515 


He tells us that Helena found the nails with which our Lord was 
crucified, and placed one in the crown worn by Constantine. 
“« Wise Helena,” he says, ‘“‘ who exalted the cross on the head of 
kings, that Christ’s cross might be adored in kings.”? But then 
he remarks that Helena worshipped that great King who was cru- 
cified, ““ not the wood on which He was crucified; that would be 
a heathenish error, a vanity of impious men; but she worshipped 
Him who hung upon the cross.’’? In vain therefore is the ancient 
use of the cross, or even the respect paid to the figure of it, alleged 
as a proof of the antiquity of image-worship. Indeed, it has not 
been the cross, but the Crucifix, the figure of the crucified Saviour, 
which has tempted to an idolatrous worship of it. 

We have seen that it was charged against the Gnostics as an 
error, that they had an image of our Saviour, and paid it honour 
as the heathen do. Eusebius tells us that the people of Paneas 
had a statue, said to have been erected by the woman who was 
healed of an issue of blood, and supposed to be a likeness of our 
blessed Saviour. Eusebius remarks on it, that it is no great won- 
der if the heathen who were healed by our Saviour should have 
done such things as this, when pictures of St. Peter, and St. Paul, 
and of Christ Himself, were said to be preserved; all this being 
after the heathen manner of honouring deliverers.? It is true, 
Sozomen tells us, that, when Julian had removed this statue, and 
the heathen had insulted it and broken it in pieces out of hatred 
to Christ, the Christians gathered up the fragments and laid them 
up in the Church.* But it follows not, because the Christians of 
his day did not wish to see a statue which was esteemed a likeness 
of our Saviour treated with contempt, that they therefore intended 
to adore it. They did not set it up in the Church to worship, but 
simply brought in the fragments there, that they might not be 
insulted. 

It is not improbable that, about the beginning of the fourth cen- 
tury, there was some inclination to bring pictures into churches ; 
for at the Council of Eliberis in Spain, a. p. 305, one of the canons 
ordered, that ‘* no picture should be in the church, lest that, which 
is worshipped or adored, be painted on the walls.” ® At the latter 


1 “Sapiens Helena, que crucem in 
zapite regum levavit, ut crux Christi in 
regibus adoretur.” — Ambros. De Obitu 
Theodosii, juxta finem. 

2 « Habeat Helena que legat (ἢ. e. tit- 
ulum in crucem a Pilato inscriptum) unde 
erucem Domini recognoscat. Invenit 
argo titulum, Regem adoravit, non lig- 
num utique, quia hic gentilis est error, 


et vanitas impiorum, sed adoravit lum 
qui pependit in ligno,” &c. — Ibid. 

3 ὡς εἰκὸς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀπαραφυλάκτως 
οἷα σωτῆρας ἐϑνικῇ συνηϑείᾳ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς 
τουτον τιμᾷν εἰωϑότων τὸν τρύπον. --- H. ΕΣ 
vit. 18. 

* Sozomen. v. 21. 

5 Concil. Eliber. can. 36: “ Placuit 
picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne 


516 OF PURGATORY. 


end of the fourth century, we are told that Paulinus, Bishop of 
Nola, to keep the country-people quiet, when they met to celebrate 
the festival of the dedication of the church of St. Felix, ordered 
the church to be painted with portraits of martyrs and Scripture 
history, such as Esther, Job, Tobit, &c.! 

Nearly at the same time, or a little earlier, Epiphanius, going 
through Anablatha, a village in Palestine, ‘ found there a veil hang- 
ing before the door of a church, whereon was painted an image of 
Christ, or some saint —he did not remember which. When he 
saw in the church of Christ an image of a man, contrary to the 
authority of Scripture, he rent it, and advised that it should be 
made ἃ winding-sheet for some poor man.” ? Here we have the 
strong testimony of a bishop and eminent father of the Church, 
not only against image-worship, but even against the use of pic- 
tures in the house of God. 

At the end of the fourth century again, St. Augustine says that 
he knew of many who were worshippers of tombs and pictures, 
and who practised other superstitious rites. But he says, the 
Church condemns all such, and strives to correct them as evil chil- 
dren? He himself declares, that it is impiety to erect a statue to 
God in the Church. He contends against the argument of the 
heathens, that they only used the image to remind them of the be- 
ing they worshipped, saying that the visible image naturally arrested 
the attention more than the invisible deity 5 ; and hence the use of 
such an outward symbol of devotion is calculated to lead to a real 
worship of the idol itself, even of the gold and silver, the work of 
men’s hands. And then he answers the objection, that Christians 
in the administration of the Sacraments had vessels made of gold 
and silver, the work of men’s hands. ‘ But,” he asks, “ have 
they a mouth, and speak not? have they eyes, and see not? or do 
we worship them, because in their use we worship God? That is 
the chief cause of the mad impiety, that a form like life has so 
much power on the feelings of the wretched beings as to make it- 


(Arr. XXII 


Lib. xv. c. 14, 4, 8). 
above. 


ὮΝ colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus See Bingham, as 


epingatur.” — See Jer. Ta lor, Dissua- 


sive, pt. 1. ch. 1. § 8; Bingham, Z. A. 
Bk. viii. ch. vit. 8 6. 

1 Paulin. Natal. 9, Felicis; Bingham, 
Bk. vii. ch. vin. § 7. 

2 Epiphan. Epist. ad Johan. Hierosol. 
translated by St. Jerome. Zp. 60: Bel- 
larmine (De Imagin. Lib. 11. 6. 9) argues 
that ie sesenne is an interpolation. But 
it is in MSS., and its genuineness 
is admitted by Petavius (De Incarnation. 


8 “ Novi multos esse sepulcrorum et 
irs ba adoratores, &c. . .. . quos et 
(Ecclesia) condemnat, et quotidie 
rie uam malos filios corrigere stud 
Moribus Ecclesia, τ. c. 84, 88 74, 75, 
Tom. I. “1a of Symbolo, ἃ 
εἰ c. vu. Tom. ΥἹ. P 
167; ΝΣ De Consensu Evangelist, τ. 
16, Tom. 11. pt. τ΄. p. 11. 


Szc. I.) OF PURGATORY. 517 


self to be worshipped, instead of its being manifest that it is not 
living, and so ought to be contemned,”’! &c. | 

From all this it is manifest, that in the fourth century, among 
ignorant Christians, a tendency to pay reverence to pictures or 
images was beginning to appear in some parts of the Church; thé 
Church herself and her bishops and divines strongly opposing and 
earnestly protesting against it. Towards the close of this century, 
and afterwards, we hear of pictures (not statues) introduced into 
churches. . Yet these pictures were not pictures of our Lord and 
His saints, but rather historical pictures of Scripture subjects, such 
as the sacrifice of Isaac, or of martyrdoms, or, as we saw from. 
Paulinus, of Job and Esther, and other famous characters of old. 
About the same time, pictures of living kings and bishops were 
admitted into the church, and set up with those of martyrs and 
Scripture histories. But as with the dead, so neither with the 
living, was worship either probable or designed.2__ However, danger 
of this kind soon arose. By degrees not pictures only, but statues 
were brought in. And in the sixth century, we find that Serenus, 
Bishop of Marseilles, ordered all the images in the churches of his 
diocese to be defaced and broken; whereupon Gregory the Great 
writes to him, to say that he approved of his forbidding images to 
be worshipped, but that.he blamed him for breaking them, as they 
were innocent of themselves, and useful for the instruction of the 
vulgar.’ 

In the eighth century arose the fehe Iconoclastic controversy 
of Constantinople. Philippicus Bardanes, the emperor, with the 
consent of John, patriarch of Constantinople, began by pulling 
down pictures from the churches, and forbade them at Rome as well 
as in Greece. Constantius, Bishop of Rome, opposed him, and 
ordered pictures of the first six councils to be placed in the porch 
of St. Peter’s. The controversy, thus kindled, raged during the 
reigns of several subsequent emperors, especially of Leo the Isau- 
rian, and his son Constantine Copronymus, who were zealous Icon- 
oclasts, and the Empress Irene, as zealous for the opposite party, 
who were called Iconoduli. In the reign of Constantine Coprony- 
mus, a council was summoned at Constantinople, A. Ὁ. 754, called 
by the Greeks the Seventh General Council, but rejected by the 
Latins, which condemned the worship and all use of images. In 


1 In Psalm. exiii. ; Serm. 11. §§ 4,5, 6. vetuisses, omnino laudavimus: fre 

2 See Bingham, H. A. Bk. vir. ch. vero reprehendimus,” &c. — Gregor. Lib. 
viii. §§ 9, 11. 1x. Ep. 9; Bingham, as above; Jer. 

8 “ Quia sanctorum imagines adorari Taylor, as above. 


518 


OF PURGATORY. 


[Arr, XXIL 


the reign of Irene, a. Ὁ. 784, the second Council of Nice was sum- 
moned by that empress, which reversed the decrees of the Council 
of Constantinople, and ordained that images should be set up, that 
salutation and respectful honour should be paid them, and incense 
should be offered; but not the worship of Latria, which is due to 
God alone.!_ The decrees of this synod were sent by Pope Adrian 
into France, to Charlemagne, to be confirmed by the bishops of his 
kingdom ; Charlemagne having also received them direct from 
Greece. The Gallican bishops, having thus a copy of the decrees, 
composed a reply to them, not objecting to images, if used for his- 
torical remembrance and ornament to walls, but absolutely con- 
demning any worship or adoration of them.? This work (the Libri 
Carolini) was published by the authority of Charlemagne and the 
consent of his bishops, a. Ὁ. 790.2 Charlemagne also consulted the 
British bishops, a. Ὁ. 792, who, abhorring the worship of images, 
authorized Albinus to convey to Charlemagne, in their name, a 


refutation of the decrees of the second Council of Nice. 


In 794, 


Charlemagne assembled a synod at Frankfort, composed of 300 
bishops from France, Germany, and Italy, who formally rejected 
the Synod of Nice, and declared that it was not to be esteemed 
the seventh general council. It has been shown, indeed, that the 
Synod of Nice was not received in the Western Church for five cen- 
turies and a half; and it was very long before there was any real 
recognition of image-worship in the West, except in those Churches 


immediately influenced by Rome.® 


In 869, the Emperor Basil assembled another council at Con- 
‘stantinople, attended by about one hundred Eastern bishops and 
‘the legates of Pope Adrian. This confirmed the worship of images, 


‘and is esteemed by Romanists as the eighth general council. 


Yet 


it is wholly rejected by the Eastern Church, and was evidently for 
a long time not acknowledged in the West.® It was rejected by 


1 In the viith Session a profession of 
faith was read and signed by the legates 
and bishops, deciding that images of 
Christ, the Virgin, and the saints, should 

‘be exposed to view and honoured, but not 
worshipped with Zatria ; but that lights 
should be burned before them and incense 
offered to them, as the honour so bestow- 
ed upon the image is transferred to the 
original. 

2 «Tum nos nihil in imaginibus sper- 
namus nisi adorationem... non ad ado- 
randum, sed ad memoriam rerum gesta- 
rum et venustatem parietum habere ‘a 
mittimus. — Lib. Carol. Lib. 11. ὁ. 16. 


8 The Caroline books are still extant. 
The Preface may be seen in Mr. Har- 
vey’s learned and useful work, Ecclesia 
Anglicane Vinder Catholicus. 

* See Dupin, Eec/. Hist. Cent. vit. ; 
Mosheim, "οί. Hist. Cent. viii, pt. 2, 
ch. 8; Usher, Answer toa Jesuit, ch. x. ; 
Bp. Bull, Corruption of Church of Rome, 
Works, 11. p. 275, &c.; Palmer, On the 
Church, part αν. ch. x. § 4. 

5 Palmer, as above. 

6 Palmer, On the Church, pt. rv. ch. x. 

5. 


Src. I.] OF PURGATORY. 519 


the next Council of Constantinople, held a. p. 879, which itself also 
is rejected by the Western Church. 

The Council of Trent, which is supposed to fix the doctrines of 
the Roman Church, enjoins that ‘Images of Christ, the Virgo 
Deipara, and the saints, shall be retained in churches, and due 
honour and veneration given to them, not because any divinity or 
virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be worshipped, 
nor because anything is to be sought from them, or faith reposed in 
them, as by the Gentiles, who placed their hope in images; but 
because the honour which is paid to them is referred to their pro- 
totypes; so that by means of the images, which we kiss and bow 
down before, we adore Christ and reverence the saints, whose like- 
ness they bear.” ! 

2. The worshipping of relics is so much connected with the 
adoration of images and invocation of saints, that we may pass it 
over the more briefly. 

No doubt, there was an early inclination to pay much respect to 
the remains of martyrs. We know from all antiquity, that the 
custom prevailed of meeting at their tombs and celebrating the 

days of their martyrdom. We find that the Smyrnzan Christians 
were disappointed at not being allowed the body of Polycarp, as 
many desired to be able to take it away. Yet they indignantly 
repudiated the notion that they could worship it.2 The importance 
attached to the finding of the true cross by St. Helena is an example 
ofa similar feeling. As the bones of Elisha restored a dead man to 
life, so the ancients early believed that miraculous powers were 
often conferred on the dead bodies of the martyrs. Such Gregory 
Nazianzen attributes to the ashes of St. Cyprian, and speaks of his 
body as a benefit to the community.? A little later, Vigilantius, a 
Gaul by birth, but a presbyter of the church of Spain, declaimed 
against the veneration which men had in his time learned to pay 
to the tombs and relics of the martyrs. It is probable, that he 
charged his fellow Christians with practices of which they were not 
guilty ; yet it is not unlikely, that in the more rude and ignorant 
neighbourhoods, that, which was at first but natural respect, was 
even then approaching to mischievous superstition. St. Jerome 
wrote fiercely against him, most distinctly and vehemently repelling 
the charge that Christians worshipped the relics of the saints. 
« Not only,” he says, ““do we not worship relics, but not the sun, 
the moon, angels nor archangels, cherubim nor seraphim, nor any 


1 Sess. xxv. De Invocatione, §c. Sancto- 2 a Μαᾳννν. Polycarpi, ce. 17. 
rum et Sacris Imaginibus. 3 Orat. xvi11, Tom. 1. pp. 284, 285. 


520 OF PURGATORY. (Arr. XXIL 


name that is named in this world or in the world to come ; lest we 
should serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed 
forever. We honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may wor- 
ship Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants, that 
their honour may redound to their Lord’s.”? His contemporary, 
St. Augustine, seems to have been more alive than St. Jerome to 
the growing evil. He graphically describes and complains of the 
custom, then beginning, of people wandering about and selling rel- 
ics, or what they said to be relics, of those who had suffered mar- 
tyrdom.? 

Still it has been proved, that, in the early ages, the Church 
never permitted anything like religious worship to be offered to the 
relics of the saints.2 The respect paid to them sprang from that 
natural instinct of humanity, which prompts us to cherish the mor- 
tal remains, and all else that is left to us, of those we have loved 
and honoured whilst in life; and the belief of the sacredness and 
future resurrection of the bodies of Christians, joined with the wish 
to protect them from the insults of their heathen persecutors, added 
intensity to this feeling. With the progress of image-worship and 
of the invocation of the saints, grew (and perhaps still more rapidly) 
the undue esteem of relics, to which sanctity seemed to belong: 
until at length the relics of saints were formally installed amongst 
the objects of worship, and set up with images for the veneration 
of the faithful.‘ 

3. The Invocation of Saints. 

For this practice no early authority can be pleaded, but against 
it the strongest testimony of the primitive Christians exists. They 
assert continually, that we should worship none but God. Thus 
Justin Martyr: ‘It becomes Christians to worship God only.” ® 
Tertullian: ‘“ For the safety of the Emperor we invoke God, eter- 
nal, true, and living God . . . . Nor can I pray to any other than 
to Him, from whom I am sure that I may obtain, because He alone 
can give it.” ® Origen: ‘To worship any-one besides the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is the sin of impiety.”* Lactantius 


1 Hieronym, L£pist. 87, ad Riparium. 5 τὸν Θεὸν μόνον δεῖ προσκυνεῖν. ---- Apol. 
Tom. rv. part ‘11. p. 279. I. Ρ. 63. 

2 « Alii membra martyrum, si tamen “Nos pro salute imperatorum De- 
martyrum, venditant.”— De Op. Monach. um*invocamus eternum, Deum verum, 
c, 28, Tum. vi. p. 498. Deum vivum ... Hee ab alio orare non 

8 See on this subject Bingham, FZ. A. possum, quam a quo me scio consecutu- 
Bk. xxrrt. cap. rv. §§ 8,9; also (referred rum, quoniam et ipse qui solus prestat.”” 
to by him) Dallwus De Objecto cultus Relig- — Apol. ο. 80. 
iosi, Lib. 1v. 7 “ Adorare quempiam preter Patrem 

* See Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv.; et Filium et Spiritam Sanctum impieta- 
Bellarmin. De Reliquiis Sanctorum, Lib. tis est crimen.”’ — Comment. in Epist. ad 
tv. &e. Roman. Lib, 1. n. 16. Comp. Zn Jesum 


Sxc. I.] OF PURGATORY. 


521 


complains of the extreme blindness of men (ὦ. 6. heathens), who 
could worship dead men.1_ And Athanasius argues from St. Paul’s 
language (1 Thess. iii. 11), that the Son must be God, and not an 
angel or any other creature, since He is invoked in conjunction 
with His Father.? 

In the circular Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, narrating the 
martyrdom of St. Polycarp, which took place about a. Ὁ. 147, it 
is said, that the Jews prevented the giving of the body to the 
Christians for burial, ‘lest forsaking Him who was crucified, they 
should begin to worship this Polycarp;”’ ‘‘ not considering,” writes 
the Church of Smyrna, “that neither is it possible for us to for- 
sake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all who are saved in . 
the whole world, the spotless One for sinners, nor to worship any 
other.” 8 

No doubt, the early Christians, believing in “ the communion of 
saints,” had a lively conviction that saints departed were still fellow- 
worshippers with the Church militant, and thought that those in 

‘Paradise still prayed for those on earth. But it does not there- 
fore follow, that they considered that those who joined with us in 
prayer, ought to be themselves addressed in prayer. On the con- 
trary, we have express evidence that those who believed the saints 
at rest to pray for the saints in trial, believed that they did so with- 
out being invoked. So Origen, ‘When men, purposing to them- 
selves things which are excellent, pray to. God, thousands of the sa- 
cred powers join with them in prayer, though not themselves called 
on or invoked.”® Nay! he is here specially arguing against Cel- 
sus, who would have had men invoke others of inferior power, after 
the God who is over all ; and he contends that, as the shadow fol- 
lows the body, so if we can move God by our prayers, we shall be 
sure to have all the angels and souls of the righteous on our side, 
and that therefore we must endeavour to please God alone.® In the 
same book he repeatedly denies that it is permitted us to worship 


Nave, Hom. v1.3: ‘ Non enim adorasset, 
nisi agnovisset Deum.” 

1 “ Homines autem ipsos ad tantam 
ceecitatem esse deductos, ut vero ac vivo 
Deo mortuos preferant.’’ —/nstit. 11. ὁ. I. 

2 νῦν δὲ ἡ τοιαῦτη δόσις δείκνυσι τὴν ἑνό- 
τητα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ οὐκ ἂν γοῦν 
εὔξαιτο τις λαβεῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τῶν 
᾿Αγγέλων * ἢ παρά τινος τῶν ἄλλων κτισμά- 
των, οὐδ᾽ ἄν εἴποι τις, δώῃ σοι ὁ Θεὸς καὶ 
Ἴγγελος. — Contra Arian, Orat. Iv. 

8 οὐδὲ ἕτερόν τινα σέβεσϑαι. --- S. Poly- 
βαγρὶ Martyrium, c. 17 ; Coteler. Tom. 11. 
p. 200. 

66 


* e.g. Origen writes: “ Ego sic arbi- 
tror, quod omnes ili, qui dormierunt ante 
nos, patres pugnent nobiscum, et adju- 
vent nos orationibus suis. Ita namque eti- 
am quendam de senioribus magistris au- 
divi dicentem,” &c.—In Jesum Nave, 
Hom. xyv1. 5. 

5 ὥστε τολμᾶν ἡμᾶς λέγειν, ὅτι ἀνθρώποις 
μετὰ προαιρέσεως προτιϑεμένοις τὰ κρείττονα, 
εὐχομένοις τῷ Θεῷ, μυρίαι ὅσαι ἄκλητοι συνεῦ- 
χονται δυνάμεις ἱεραὶ.--- Cont. Celsum, Lib. 
vir. 6. 64, 

6 Cont. Cels. Lib. vi11. ¢. 64. 


522 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXIL 


angels, who are ministering spirits, our duty being to worship God 
alone.1 And whereas Celsus had said, that’ angels (δαίμονες) be- 
longed to God, and should be reverenced, Origen says, “" Far from 
us be the counsels of Celsus, that we should worship them. We 
must pray to God alone who is over all, and to the only-begotten 
Son, the first-born of every creature, and from Him must ask, that, 
when our prayers have reached Him, He, as High Priest, would 
offer them to His God and our God, to His Father, and the Father 
of all who live according to His word.” 2 

St. Athanasius observes, that St. Peter forbade ον to wor- 
ship him (Acts x. 26), and the angel forbade St. John, when he 
would have worshipped him (Rev. xxii. 9). ‘ Wherefore,” he adds, 
“it belongs to God only to be worshipped, and of this the angels 
. are not ignorant, who, though they excel in glory, are yet all of 
them creatures, and are not in the number of those to be adored, 
- but of those who adore the Lord.” ὃ 

In like manner the Council of Laodicea, held probably about 
A. Ὁ. 864,4 forbids Christians to attend conventicles where angels 
were invoked, and pronounces anathema on all such as were guilty 
of this secret idolatry, inasmuch as they might be esteemed to have 
left the Lord Jesus, and given themselves to idolatry.6 Theodoret 
tells us, that the reason why this canon was passed at Laodicea 
was because in Phrygia and Pisidia men had learned to pray to 
angels; and even to his own day, he says, there were oratories of 
St. Michael among them.® 

We hear of another early example of an heretical tendency to 
creature-worship, which seems almost providentially to have been 
permitted, in order that there might be an early testimony borne 
against it. Epiphanius tells us that, whereas some had treated the 
Virgin Mary with contempt, others were led to the other extreme 
of error, so that women offered cakes before her, and exalted her to 
the dignity of one to be worshipped.’ This, he says, was a doc- 
trine invented by demons. ‘No doubt the body of Mary was 
holy ; but shea was not a God.” Again, “The Virgin was a vir- 


1 Cont. Cels. v111. num. 35, 57. ὀνομάζειν καὶ συνάξεις ποιεῖν " ἅπερ ἀπηγόρευ- 
2 Τοϊᾷ, num. 26. See the like argu- ται. el τις οὖν εὑρεϑῇ ταύτῃ τῇ κεκρυμμένῃ 
ment, Cont. Cels. v. num. 4. εἰδωλολατρείᾳ σχολάζων, ἔστω ἀνάϑεμα, ὅτι 


8 Athanas. Cont, Arian. Orat. 111. Tom. ἐγκατέλιπε τὸν Κύριον ν ἐμὸν ac 
T. p. 804 τὸν Ὑἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, δωλολατρείᾳ προ. 
The date is uncertain, some placing σῆλϑεν. 
it as early as A. Ὁ. 814, others as late as 6 Theodoret, In Coloss. ii. and iii. ; 
A. D. 872. Lakes, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. 1X.; Suicer, 
5 Concil. Lnedlio. Can, xxxv. 8. Vv. dyye 
"Ore οὐ δεῖ χριστιανοὺς ἐγκαταλεΐπειν τὴν 7 ioe: 79. 
ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀπιέναι καὶ ἀγγέλους 


Sec. I.] OF PURGATORY. 528 


gin, and to be honoured; yet not given us to be worshipped, but 
herself worshipper, of Him who was born of her after the flesh, 
and who came down from Heaven and from the bosom of His 
Father.” He then continues, that “the words ‘ Woman, what 
have I to do with thee?’ were spoken on purpose that we might 
know her to be a woman, and not esteem her as something of a 
more excellent nature, and because our Lord foresaw the heresies 
likely to arise.” Again he says, “ Neither Elias, though he never 
died, nor Thecla, nor any of the saints, is to be worshipped.” ? If 
the Apostles “ will not allow the angels to be worshipped, how 
much less the daughter of Anna,” i. 6. the blessed Virgin. ‘* Let 
Mary be honoured, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Spirit be worshipped. Let no man worship Mary.”? “ Therefore 
though Mary be most excellent, holy, and honoured, yet is it not 
that she should be adored.” 8 

Thus early did the worship of the Virgin show itself, and thus 
earnestly did the Christian fathers protest against it.‘ 

Gregory Nazianzen flourished nearly at the same time with Epi- 
phanius, towards the end of the fourth century. Archbishop Usher 
says, that his writings are the first in which we meet with any- 
thing like an address to the spirits of the dead.6 It is worth while 
to see how this is. First, then, let us premise, that he expressly, 
declares all worship of a creature to be idolatry. He positively 
charges the Arians with idolatry, because they, not believing the 
Son of God to be fully equal and of one substance with the Father, 
yet offered prayers to Him.’ It is plain, therefore, that any ad- 
dress made by him to the departed could not be intended to be of 
the nature of that inferior worship, which the Arians offered to the 
Son, believing Him only the chief of the creatures of God. Yet it 
is clear that he believed, though not with certainty, that departed 
saints took an interest in all that passed among their friends and 
brethren on earth.? He had even a pious persuasion that they 
still continued as much as ever to aid with their prayers those for 
whom they had been wont to pray on earth. And he ventures 
to think, if it be not too bold to say so, (εἰ μὴ τολμηρὸν τοῦτο éizeiv,) 


1 οὔτε τις τῶν ἁγίων προσκυνεῖται. 

3 ἐν τιμῇ ἔστω Μαρία, ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ, καὶ 
Υἱὸς καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα προσκυνείσϑω, τὴν 
Μαρίαν μηδεὶς προσκυνείτω. 

8 καὶ εἰ καλλίστη ἡ Μαρία καὶ ἁγία καὶ 
τετιμημένη, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ εἰς τὸ προσκυνεῖσϑαι. 

4 Bellarmine quotes a passage from 
Athanasius (De Deipara Virgine, ad finem) 
which would, if genuine, prove that St. 
Athanasius sanctions the worship of the 


Virgin ; but the tract is known to be spu- 
rious, and was evidently written after the 
rise of the Monothelite heresy. 

5 Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. rx. 

ὁ Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xu. Tom. 1. p. 
669. 

7 καὶ γὰρ πείϑομαι τὰς τῶν ἁγίων ψυχὰς 
9 ἡμετέρων aicdaveoda. — Epist. 201, 
p- 898. 

® Orat. xxiv. p. 425. 


524 OF PURGATORY. [Arr. XX 


that the saints, being then nearer to God, and having put off the 
fetters of the flesh, have more avail with Him than when on earth.? 
In all this he does not appear to have gone further than some who 
preceded him; nor is there anything in such speculations beyond 
what might be consistent which the most Protestant abhorrence of 
saint-worship and Mariolatry. Let us then see how it influenced 
him in the addresses which he is supposed to have made to the 
departed. In his first oration against Julian, speaking rhetorically, 
he addresses the departed emperor Constantius, “Hear, O soul of 
the great Constantius, if thou hast any sense or perception of these 
things, thou and the Christian souls of emperors before thee.’’? 
So, in his funeral oration on his sister Gorgonia, he winds up 
thus: “If thou hast a care forthe things done by us, and pious 
souls have this honour of God, that they perceive such things, re- 
ceive this our oration, in the place of many funeral rites.”* Yet 
these addresses, so far from resembling the prayer in after-times 
offered to the saints, do in themselves effectually bear witness that 
no such prayers were ever at that time sent up to them.. In 
oratorical language, in regular oratorical harangues, Gregory ad- 
dresses himself to the souls of the departed. In one case he, as 
it were, calls on the soul of Constantius to witness; in the other 
he addresses his- sister, and trusts that she may be satisfied with 
“the funeral honours done to her. But in both instances he ex- 
presses doubt whether they can hear him, and in neither does he 
make anything like prayers to them. 

All good things are liable to abuse ; and the affectionate interest 
which the first Christians felt in the repose of the souls who had 
gone before them to Paradise, their belief that they still prayed 
with them and for them, no doubt, in course of time engendered 
an inclination to ask the departed to offer prayers for them, and so 
by degrees led to the Mariolatry and saint-worship of the Church 
of Rome. We have seen, however, the clearest proofs that noth- 
ing of the sort was permitted or endured in the first four centuries. 
Later than that, we have distinct evidence in the same direction 
from those great lights of the Church, St. Chrysostom and St. 
Augustine. The former protests against angel-worship as the most 
fearful abomination, and attributes its origin to the inventions of 
the devil.4 St. Augustine replies to a charge brought by the Man- 


1 Orat. xix. p. 288. λόγος, καὶ τοῦτο ταῖς ὁσίαις ψυχαῖς ἐκ Θεου 
2 "Ακουε καὶ 7 τοῦ μεγάλου Κωνσταντίου γέρας, τῶν τοιούτων ἐπαισϑάνεσϑαι, 
ψυχὴ, εἴ τις αἴσϑησις, τε πρὸ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον, ἀντὲ πολλῶν καὶ 


Βασιλέων φιλόχριστοι. ---- Orat. 111. p. 50. πρὸ πολλῶν ἐνταφίων. ---- Orat. x1. p. 189. 
ὃ εἴ δέ τις σοὶ καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐστι 4 ὁ διάβολος τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ἐπεισῆγαγε͵ 


Sxc. 1 OF PURGATORY. 525 


ichees, that the Catholics worshipped the martyrs, saying that 
Christians celebrated the memories of martyrs to excite themselves 
to imitation, to associate themselves in their good deeds, to have 
the benefit of their prayers; but never so as to offer up sacrifice 
(the sacrifice of worship) to martyrs, but to the God of martyrs. 
« The honour,” he continues, “which we bestow on martyrs, is 
the honour of love and society, just as holy men of God are hon- 
oured in this life ; but with that honour which the Greeks call 
Latria, and for which there is no one word in Latin, a service 
proper to God alone, we neither worship nor teach any one to wor- 
ship any but God.” 1 

Unhappily, some even of this early time, whose names are de- 
servedly had in honour, were not so wise. St. Jerome, the con- 
temporary of St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine, gave too much 
encouragement to the superstitions which were taking root in his 
day. Vigilantius, whatever his errors may have been, seems wisely 
to have protested against the growing tendency to venerate the rel- 
ics and bones of the martyrs, and even called those who did so, 
idolaters. St. Jerome repudiates indeed all idolatrous worship. 
** Not only do we not worship and adore the relics of martyrs, but 
neither sun nor moon, nor angels, nor archangels, cherubim nor 
seraphim, nor any name that is named, in this world or in the 
world to come, lest we should serve the creature more than the 
Creator, who is blessed forever.” But he earnestly defends the 
sanctity of the martyrs’ relics. Vigilantius had argued, that the 
souls of Apostles and martyrs were either in the bosom of Abra- 
ham, or in a place of rest and refreshment, or beneath the altar of 
God (Rev. vi. 9). But Jerome contends, that “* they follow the 
Lamb whithersoever He goeth (Rev. xiv. 4); and as the Lamb is 
everywhere present, so we may believe them to be ; and as demons 
wander through the earth, can we argue that the souls of martyrs 
must be confined to one place?” On the contrary, he thinks that 
they may frequent the shrines where their relics are preserved, 
and where their memorials are celebrated. He expresses belief in 
miracles wrought at the tombs of martyrs, and that they pray for 
us after their decease. He defends the custom of lighting torches 


βασκαίνων ἡμῖν τῆς τιμῆς. --- Homil. rx. in 
Coloss. See also Homil. v. vit. in Coloss. ; 
Bingham, 3. A. x111. iii. 3. 

1 “ Colimus ergo martyres eo cultu di- 
lectionis' et societatis, quo et in hac vita 
coluntur sancti homines Dei, quorum cor 
ad talem pro evangelica veritate passio- 
nem paratum esse sentimus. At vero 


illo cultu, que Greece Latria dicitur, La- 
tine uno verbo dici non potest, cum sit 
quedam proprie Divinitati debita servi- 
tus, nec colimus, nec colendum docemus 
nisi unum Deum.” — Contr. Faustum, 
Lib. χχι. c. 20, Tom. virt. p. 847; Bing- 
ham, x11. iii. 2. 


526 OF PURGATORY. 
before the martyrs’ shrines, denying that it is idolatrous to do so. 
Here, though such language is far different from what we read in 
after-ages, we yet clearly trace the rise and gradual progress of 
dangerous error. 

The temptation to turn the mind from God to His creatures is 
nowhere more likely to assail us than in our devotions. The mul- 
titude, converted from heathenism, who had all along worshipped 
deified mortals, readily lapsed into the worship of martyrs. The 
noxious plant early took root, and though for a time the wise and 
pious pastors of the Church kept down its growth, still it gained 
strength and sprang up afresh; until in ages of darkness and igno- 
rance it reached a height so great, that, at least among the rude 
and untaught masses, it overshadowed with its dark branches the 
green pastures of the Church of Christ. 

It is unnecessary to trace its progress. It grew steadily on, 
though still checked occasionally. During the Iconoclastic contro- 
versy, one of the canons of the Council of Frankfort forbade not 
only image-worship, but the invocation of saints (a. p. 794); 
which, however, had been upheld by the opposite party at the sec- 
ond Council of Nice (a. p. 787). 

Our Article especially condemns the “ Romish doctrine” of in- 
vocation of saints, for which, of course, we must consult the de- 
crees of the Council of Trent. That council simply enjoins, that 
the people be taught “that the saints reigning with Christ offer 
their prayers for men to God, and that.it is good and useful to in- 
voke them as suppliants; and for the sake of the obtaining of 
benefits from God through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only 
Redeemer and Saviour, to have recourse to their prayers.” The 
calling this idolatry it declares to be impious.? The creed of the 
council has one article, “ As also that the saints reigning with 
Christ are to be venerated and invoked, and that they offer up 
prayers for us to God, and that their relics are to be venerated.” 8 

This is the mildest statement of the doctrine. Unhappily the 
practice has far exceeded it ; and that too in the public and author- 
ized prayers of the Romish Church. It would be an irksome task 


[Arr. XXIL 


1 Epist. 87, ad Riparium, Tom. rv. pt. 
11. p. 279. 

2 “TDocentes eos, sanctos una cum 
Christo regnantes orationes suas pro ho- 
minibus offerre, bonum atque utile esse 


eorum orationes, opem auxiliumque con- 
fugere,” &c.— . xxv. De Invocatione 
Sanctorum, ὅτε. 

8 « Similiter et sanctos una cum Christo 
regnantes venerandos et invocandos esse, 


suppliciter eos invocare, et ob beneficia 
impetranda a Deo per Filium ejus Jesum 
Christum, Dominum Nostrum, qui solus 
noster Redemptor et Salvator est, ad 


eosque orationes Deo pro nobis offerre, 
eorumque on esse venerandas.” 
Bulla Pii IV. Super Forma Juramenti 
Professionis Fidei. 


Szc. 1. OF PURGATORY. BY 


to collect the many expressions of idolatrous worship with which 
the Blessed Virgin is approached; and they are too well known to 
- make it necessary. 

It is desirable to observe the distinctions which Romanist divines 
make between the worship due to God, and that paid to the Blessed 
Virgin and the saints. They lay it down, that there are three kinds 
of worship or adoration : first, latria, which belongs only to God; 
secondly, that honour and respect shown to good men ; thirdly, an 
intermediate worship, called by them dudia, which belongs to glori- 
fied saints in general, and hyperdulia, which belongs to the human 
nature of Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin.? 

They determine, that the saints are to be invoked, not as prima- 
rily able to grant our prayers, but only to aid us with their inter- 
cessions ; although they admit, that the forms of the prayers are 
as though we prayed directly to them; as for instance in the 
hymn : — : 

Maria mater gratie, ἡ 
Mater misericordiz, 


Tu nos ab hoste protege, 
Et hora mortis suscipe. 


They say, moreover, that the saints pray for us through Christ, 
Christ prays immediately to the Father.? 

It has seemed unnecessary to say anything of the views con- 
cerning the various subjects of this Article, as entertained by the 
different Protestant communions. All the reformed bodies of Eu- 
rope have agreed in condemning the belief in purgatory, image- 
worship, and saint-worship. The Calvinistic bodies are more rigid 
than the Church of England and the Lutherans, in their rejec- 
tion of all outward symbolism and emblems in their worship and 
places of worship. The Lutherans retain, not only the cross, 
but pictures and the Crucifix in their churches; but, of course, 
they exhibit nothing like adoration to them. The Church of Eng- 
land has retained the cross as the symbol of redemption, and has 
encouraged the architectural adornment of her churches, but she 
has generally rejected the Crucifix, and whatever may appear to 
involve the least danger of idolatrous worship. 


1 See Bellarmine, De Sanct. Beatit. Lib. 1. cap. 12. 2 Thid. ο. 17. 


528 OF PURGATORY. [Arr. XXIL 


Srcrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


I. 1. Purgatory. 

On this subject, and indeed on all the subjects of this Article, 
the burden of proof evidently lies with those who maintain the 
affirmative side of the question. If there be a purgatory, and if 
saints and images be objects of adoration, there should be some 
evidence to convince us that it is so. 

The proofs from Scripture alleged in favour of purgatory are of 
two kinds : — 

(1) Passages which speak of prayer for the dead. 
(2) Passages which directly bear upon purgatory. 

(1) The passages alleged in favour of. prayer for the dead are: 

2 Macc. xii. 42-45: where Judas is said to have “made a 
reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from 
3in.”’ ΄ 

Tobit iv. 17: “ Pour out thy bread,” 7. e. give alms to obtain 
prayers from the poor, “at the burial of the just, but give nothing 
to the wicked.” 

1 Sam. xxxi. 18: “They took their bones and buried them 
under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.” ‘This fasting is 
supposed to have been for the souls of Saul and his son. . 

1 Cor. xv. 29: “Else what shall they do which are baptized 
for the dead?” that is, who fast and weep, being baptized in tears 
for the dead. 

2 Tim. i. 16, 18: “* The Lord give mercy to the house of One- 
siphorus . . . . The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy 
of the Lord in that day.” Where it is contended that Onesiphorus 
must have been dead, for St. Paul, who prays for present and 
future blessings to other people, here evidently prays for the be- 
reaved family of Onesiphorus, and for Onesiphorus himself, that 
he may be blessed at the day of judgment. 

In answer to all this we may say, that the only clear passage in 
favour of prayer for the dead is from the apocryphal book of Mac- 
cabees, which, not having the authority of Scripture, is merely of 
the force of Jewish tradition. But how little Jewish traditions 
are to be regarded in proof of doctrine, our Lord’s condemnation 
of them is evidence enough. It certainly may be argued from this 
that the Jews sometimes used prayers for the dead, which no doubt 
was the case. But it would be very difficult to show that any 
sect among them believed in a purgatory. Of all the passages 


Sea ae a oe ὙΠ ee. νι 


Sec. II.] OF PURGATORY. 529 


from the canonical Scriptures, the last cited (from 2 Tim. i. 18) 
is the only one that has any appearance of really favouring prayer 
for the dead. No doubt, some Protestant commentators (6. g. 
Grotius) have believed that Onesiphorus was dead. But if it be 
80, St. Paul’s words merely imply a pious hope that, when he shall 
stand before the judgment-seat “‘in that day,” he may “ obtain 
mercy of the Lord,” and receive the reward of the righteous, and 
not the doom of the wicked. There is certainly nothing in such an 
aspiration which implies the notion that he was, at the time it was 
uttered, in purgatory, and that St. Paul’s prayers might help to 
deliver him from it. On the contrary, if the words be used con- 
cerning one already dead, they will furnish a proof from Scripture, 
in addition to the many which have been brought from antiquity,! 
that prayer for the dead does not of necessity presuppose a belief 
in purgatory. The early Christians undoubtedly did often pray 
for saints, of whose rest and blessedness they had no manner of 
doubt. Hence it would be no proof of the doctrine of purgatory, 
even if fifty clear passages, instead of a single doubtful one, could 
be brought to show that the Apostles permitted prayer for the 
dead. 

(2) The passages which are brought as directly bearing on 
purgatory, are Ps. xxxviii. 1: “Ὁ Lord, rebuke me not in thy 
wrath ; neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure.” ‘ Wrath” 
is said to mean eternal damnation; “hot displeasure,” to mean 
purgatory. 

Ps. Ixvi. 12: “ We went through fire” (7. e. purgatory) “ and 
through water” (ὦ. 6. baptism) ; ““ but Thou broughtest us out into 
a wealthy place.” 

Isai. iv. 4: ‘* When the Lord shall*have washed away the filth 
of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jeru- 
salem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the 
spirit of burning.” 3 

Isai. ix. 18. Mic. vii. 8, 9. 

Zech. ix. 11: ‘As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant 
I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.” 
This is interpreted of Christ’s descent into hell, to deliver those 
who were detained in the limbus patrum. 

Mal. iii. 3: “ΗΔ shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ; and 
He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them,” &c. 


1 See Section 1. i. 1. not interpret it of purgatory, but of that 
2 Bellarmine cites Augustine (De Civit. trial by fire which Origen, and others 
Dei, Lib. xx. c. 25) as interpreting this after him, supposed was to take place at 
of purgatory. Augustine, however,does the judgment-day. 
67 


630 OF PURGATORY. (Arr. XXL 


Matt. xii. 32: “It shall not be forgiven him neither in this 
world, neither in the world to come ;”’ i. 6. evidently in purgatory, 
for in hell there is no forgiveness. 

Matt. v. 22: Our Lord speaks of three kinds of punishments, 
the judgment, the council, and hell. The latter belongs to the 
world to come; therefore the two former must. Hence there 
must be some punishments in the next world besides hell. 

Matt. v. 25, 26: “ Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles 
thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary de- 
liver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, 
and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt 
by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost 
farthing.”” The last words show that the prison must be purga- 
tory, a temporal, not an eternal punishment. Otherwise, how 
would anything be said about coming out of it ? 

1 Cor. iii, 12-15 : * Now if any man build upon this foundation, 
gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble ; every man’s work 
shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall 
be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of 
what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built 
thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall 
be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet 
so as by fire.” 

Luke xvi. 9, xxiii. 42, are also quoted ; but it is difficult to see 
how they can be made to bear on the question. Also Acts ii. 24, 
where our Lord is said to have “loosed the pains of death,” %. e. 
to have delivered the souls from limbus. And Phil. ii. 10, Rev. 
ν. 8, which speak of beings ‘in Heaven and earth and under the 
earth.” Where, “under the earth,” it is contended, must mean 
purgatory. 

These are all that are alleged by Bellarmine as proofs from 
Scripture that there is a purgatory between death and judgment. 
He adds, however, arguments from the fathers, whose sentiments 
have been already considered, and many from visions of the saints, 
which it will be unnecessary to consider. His principal argument 
from reason is, that, although sins are forgiven to all true penitents 
for the merits of Christ, yet it is as regards their eternal, not their 
temporal punishment ; for we know that many devout penitents 
have to suffer the temporal punishments of their sins, though the 
eternal be remitted. Thus natural death, which is the result of 
sin, the temporal wages of sin, befals all men, those who are saved 

1 Bellarmine, De Purgatorio, Lib. τ. ¢. 3-8, &e. 


Sxc. 1.1 OF PURGATORY. 531 


from, as well as those who fall into, death eternal. So David had 
his sin forgiven him, but still his child died. Eternally he was 
saved, but temporally punished. Now it often happens that per- 
sons have not suffered all the temporal punishment due to their 
sins in this life ; and therefore we must needs suppose, there is some 
state of punishment awaiting them in the next.) 

It appears at first sight, to a person unused to believe in pur- 
gatory, almost impossible that such a doctrine could be grounded 
on such arguments. If indeed the doctrine were proved and es- 
tablished on separate grounds, then perhaps some of the passages 
quoted above might be fairly alleged in illustration of it, or as bear- 
ing a second and mystical interpretation, which might have refer- 
ence to it. But what is fair in illustration may be utterly insuffi- 
cient for demonstration. 

It is not too much to assert, that only one of the texts from 
Scripture cited by Bellarmine can be alleged in direct proof. If 
he rightly interpret 1 Cor. jii. 12-15, that may be considered as 
a direct and cogent argument; and then some of the other passages 
might be brought to illustrate and confirm it. But if that were 
put out of the question, we may venture to say even Roman Cath- 
olic controversialists would find the Scriptural ground untenable. 
The passages in St. Matthew (v. 26, xii. 32, ‘* Thou shalt by no 
means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,” 
and, “It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither 
in the world to come’) may indeed be supposed to speak of tem- 
poral punishments in the next world. But if they prove anything, 
they prove more than the Roman Catholic Church would wish, 
namely, that the pains of hell are not eternal ; for it is evidently hell 
which is the punishment of unrepented and unpardoned sin. Those 
who go to purgatory, are, on the showing of its own advocates, 
those who: have received forgiveness of their sins, but need the pur- 
gation of suffering, either here or hereafter, to fit them for Heaven 
The truth is, that the words of our Lord indicate merely, first, that 
as a great debtor is imprisoned till he has paid the last farthing, so 
a man who is not delivered here from the burden of his sins must 
remain in punishmemt for ever, as his debt is too heavy ever to be 
paid off; and next, that he who sins against the Holy Ghost has 
never forgiveness ; and it is added, ‘neither in this world, neither 
in the world to come,” to impress more forcibly both the fearfulness ~ 
and the eternity of his condemnation. 

To recur, then, to 1 Cor. iii. 12-15; Bellarmine himself ἀθοιάς 

1 Bellarmine, De Purgatorio, Lib. τ. cap. 11. 


582 OF PURGATORY. (Arr. XXII 


St. Augustine! as saying that it is one of those hard passages of 
St. Paul, which St. Peter speaks of as wrested by unstable men to 
their destruction, and which St. Augustine wishes to be interpreted 
by wiser men than himself. If so, it is hardly prudent or modest 
to build such a doctrine as purgatory upon it. Bellarmine himself 
recounts many different interpretations of the different figures in 
the passage, as given by different fathers and divines. That all the 
fathers did not interpret it of purgatory is most certain; for St. 
Chrysostom has already been quoted as interpreting it of eternal 
damnation. But more than that, those fathers whose interpretation 
seems most suitable to the Romanist belief, do not understand the 
passage of purgatory, but of a purgatorial or probatory fire, not be- 
tween death and judgment, but at the very day of judgment itself, 
when all works shall be brought up and be had in remembrance 
before the Lord. This has already been shown in the preceding 
section. And indeed it is not possible justly to give an interpreta- 
tion of the passage nearer to the Romish interpretation than this. 
The expression ‘ the day ” is understood by all who interpret it of 
the next life to mean “the day of judgment.” ‘ The day” can- 
not certainly be well understood of the hidden and unrevealed 
state of the dead in the intermediate and disembodied state. If, 
therefore, the passage refers to the next world at all, it must mean 
that at the day of judgment all works shall be revealed, and tried, 
as it were, in the fire. Those who have built on the right founda- 
tion shall be saved; though, if their superstructure be of an infe- 
rior quality (whatever be meant by the superstructure), it shall be 
lost. This might indeed be made to suit the doctrine of Origen, 
_but is utterly inapplicable to the doctrine of purgatory. 

But even Origen’s doctrine it will not well suit, if the context 
be fully considered. St. Paul had been speaking of himself and 
Apollos, as labourers together in the work of evangelizing the 
world and building the Church (vv. 5-9). The Church he de- 
clares to be God’s building (ver. 9), even a temple for the indwell- 
ing of the Spirit (ver. 16). Now he says, the only possible founda- 
tion which can be laid is that which has been laid already, even 
Jesus Christ, (ver. 11). But the builders (ἡ. e. ministers of 
Christ), in building the Church on this foundation, may make the 
superstructure of various materials, some building of safe and pre- 
cious materials, gold, silver, and precious stones ; others of less val- 
uable or less durable, wood, hay, and stubble. What then must 
be the meaning of this? Clearly, either that, in building up the 


1 De Fide et Operibus, c. 16. 


Ot Ne cee a eee ee ee ee a ee — νυν re 


Sec. IT.] OF PURGATORY. 5338 


Church, they may upon the foundation, Christ, build sounder or 
less sound doctrines, — or, (which seems a still more correct inter- 
pretation of the figures,) that they may build up soundly instructed 
and confirmed believers, or, by negligence and ignorance, may train 
less orthodox and steadfast Christians. There is evidently nothing 
about the good or bad works of Christian men built on the founda- 
tion of a sound faith. It is the good or bad workmanship of Chris- 
tian pastors in building up the Church of Christ. To proceed then: 
when the Christian minister and master-builder has thus finished 
his work, the day will prove whether it be good or bad. If his 
building be stable, it will endure, and he will be blessed in his la- 
bours and “receive a reward’ (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 17). But if his 
superstructure be destroyed; if those, whom he has built up in the 
faith prove ill instructed and unstable, he will himself suffer loss, 
he will lose those disciples, who would have been ‘his crown of 
rejoicing in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ at His coming” 
(1 Thess. ii. 19) ; and even he himself will escape, as it were, out 
of the fire!’ It may be that the fiery trial means “ the day ”’ of 
judgment: for then all men’s works shall be manifested; and the 
building of the Christian pastor or Apostle shall be then proved good 
or evil, by the characters and works of those whom he has con- 
verted and taught. But, as whatever doth make manifest is called 
‘the day,” therefore many think, and that with much ground of 
reason, that ‘the day” here spoken of was that day of trial and 
persecution which was awaiting the Church. That day was indeed 
likely to prove the faithfulness of the converts, and therefore the 
soundness of the pastor’s building. St. Paul often speaks of un- 
sound teachers; and if they had built up unstably, the day of 
persecution was likely to reveal it, to show the hollowness of their 
disciples, and to cause them loss. And such a trial would be ‘so 
as by fire.” Elsewhere the term “ fiery trial”’ is applied to perse- 
cution and affliction. St. Peter speaks specially of the trial of 
faith by affliction, as being like that of gold in the furnace, the 
very same metaphor with that used here by St. Paul (1 Pet. i. 
7) ; and, again with the same meaning, tells the Christians that 
they should not ‘think it strange concerning the fiery trial which 
was to try them,” but to rejoice, as it would the more fit them to 
partake of Christ’s glory. 

But whether we interpret the day and the fiery trial of persecu- 
tion here or of judgment hereafter, there is no room in either for 


1 ὡς διὰ πυρὸς. The expression is “so an escape from great danger. See Gro- 
as by fire;” a proverbial expression for tius and Rosenmiiller, in loc. 


584 OF PURGATORY. [Arr. XXIL 


purgatory. Purgatory is not a time of trial on earth, nor is it at 
the time of standing before the Judgment-seat of Heaven. There- 
fore it is not the fiery trial of St. Paul, nor is it the day, which shall 
try of what nature is the superstructure erected by the master- 
builders on the one foundation of the Christian Church. 

If then the texts alleged in favour of purgatory fail to establish it, 
we may go on tosay that there are many which are directly op- 
posed to it. It was promised to the penitent thief, “* To-day thou 
shalt be with Me in Paradise ” (Luke xxiii. 43). St. Paul felt 
assured, that it was better “to depart, and to be with Christ ” 
(Phil. i. 23), “to be absent from the body, and present with the 
Lord” (2 Cor. v. 8) ; having no apprehension of a purgatorial fire, 
in the middle state ; apparently laying it down as a principle con- 
cerning pious men, that whilst “at home in the body they are 
absent from the Lord ;” and that they may be confidently willing 
to leave the body, that they may be with the Lord (see 2 Cor. v. 
6-9). Not one word about purgatory is ever urged upon Chris- 
tians, to quicken them to a closer.walk with God. All the other 
“terrors of the Lord” are put forth in their strongest light “ to 
persuade men ;” but this, which would be naturally so powerful, 
and which has been made so much of in after-times, is never 
brought forward by the Apostles. Nay! St. John declares that 
he had an express revelation concerning the present happiness of 
those that sleep in Jesus, namely, that they were blessed and at 
rest. ‘I hearda voice from Heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed 
are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth; yea, saith 
the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours” (Rev. xiv. 13). 
When we couple such express declarations as these with the ex- 
hortations not to grieve for the dead in Christ, the general assur- 
ances concerning the blessedness of the death of the righteous, and 
concerning the cleansing from all sin by the blood of Christ, and 
then contrast them with the very slender Scriptural ground on 
which purgatory rests, it will be scarcely possible to doubt, that 
that doctrine was the growth of after-years, and sprang from the 
root of worldly philosophy, not of heavenly wisdom. Compare 
Luke xxi. 28; John νυ. 24; Eph. iv. 30; 1 Thess. iv. 18, wt 2 
Thess. i. 7 3 2 Tim. iv. 8; 1 Johni. 7; iii. 14. 

2. Pardons or Indulgences. 

The doctrine of pardons, and the custom of granting indulgences, 
rest on two grounds, namely, 1, purgatory, 2, works of supereroga- 
tion. Indulgences, as granted by the Church of Rome, signify a 
remission of the temporal punishment of sins in purgatory ; and the 


See. Π.] OF PURGATORY. 585 


power to grant them is supposed to be derived from the superabun-. 
dant merits of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. It is ar- 
gued by Romanist divines that (1) A double value exists in men’s 
good deeds, first of merit, secondly of satisfaction: (2) A good deed, 
-as it is meritorious, cannot be applied to another; but, as it is satis- 
factory or expiatory, it can: (8) There exists in the Church an infi- 
nite store of the merits of Christ, which never can be exhausted : 
(4.) And, in addition to this, the sufferings of the Virgin Mary 
(herself immaculate) and of the other saints, having been more 
than enough for their own sins, avail for the sins of others. 
Now, in the Church is deposited all this treasure of satisfactions, 
and it can be applied to deliver the souls of others from the tem- 
poral punishment of sins, the pains of purgatory.1 That such a 
power exists in the pope is argued from the command to St. Peter, 
“‘ to feed the sheep of Christ,” and the promise to him of the keys 
of the kingdom, of authority to bind and to loose. That the good 
deeds of one man are transferable to another, is thought to be 
proved by the article of the Creed, “I believe in the communion 
of saints,” and by the words of St. Paul, “1 will very gladly spend 
and be spent for you” (2 Cor. xii. 15); “I endure all things for 
the elect’s sake” (2 Tim. ii. 10); “I rejoice in my sufferings for 
you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in 
my flesh for His body’s sake, which is the Church ” ? (Col. i. 24). 

Both the doctrine of purgatory and that concerning works of 
supererogation have already been considered; and we have seen 
that they have no foundation in Scripture. Hence the practice of 
granting indulgences, which rests on them, must necessarily be con- 
‘demned. The Romanist divines admit that indulgences free not. 
from natural pains, or from civil punishments. They never profess 
that they can deliver from eternal death. Hence, if there be no 
purgatory, there can be no room for indulgences. 

If there be, as they state, an infinite store of Christ’s merits 
committed to the Church, one would think it needless to add the 
sufferings of the Virgin Mary and of the saints. As to the claim, 
to dispense the benefits of these sufferings, founded on the prom- 
ise of the keys to St. Peter, I hope to consider more at length 
the whole question of binding and loosing, of retaining and remit- 
ting sins, and of the pope’s succession to St. Peter, under future 
Articles. Suffice it here that we remember, 1, that there is no 


1 Bellarmine, De Indulgentiis, Lib. 1. passage, Col. i. 24, was considered under 
cap. Il. 2; 3, τ Art. xrv. p. 351, note. 
Ibid. Lib. 1. c. 8. The last-cited ὃ Bellarmin. Ibid. Lib. 1. ο. 7. 


536 OF PURGATORY. 


foundation for the figment of purgatory in Scripture, and that its 
gradual rise is clearly traceable ; 2, that none of the saints, not 
even the Blessed Virgin, were free from sin, nor able to atone for 
their own sins; 3, that works of supererogation are impossible ; 
4, that therefore indulgences, partly derived from superabundant 
works of satisfaction performed by the saints, and having for their 
object the freeing of souls from purgatory, must be unwarranted 
and useless. 


(Arr. ΧΧΙΙ. 


II. 1. The Worshipping and Adoration of Images. 

We can readily believe that the champions of image - worship 
would find a difficulty in discovering Scriptural authority for their 
practice. But it rather surprises us to learn that their whole stock 
of argument is derived from the old Testament; in which no sin is 
so much condemned as the worship, nay, even the making of idols. 
The distinction between idols and images, it seems hard to un- 
derstand. That images may lawfully be placed in temples, is ar- 
gued from the fact that Moses was commanded to make the Cher- 
ubim of gold, and place them on each side of the mercy-seat, (Ex. 
xxv. 18); and that Solomon carved all the walls of the temple 
**round about with carved figures of Cherubim” (2 Kings vi. 29), 
and “‘he made a molten sea —and it stood upon twelve oxen — 
and on the borders were lions, oxen, and Cherubim” (1 Kings vii. 
28, 25, 29).! That the second commandment? does not forbid 
making images, but only making them with the object of worshipping 
them, is also contended; and thus far we have no reason to com- 
plain. There may be a superstitious dread, as well as a supersti- 
tious use, of outward emblems. No doubt, much as the Jew was 
bidden to hold idolatry in abhorrence, he was not only permitted, 
but commanded to place emblematical figures in the house of the 
Lord. It is further said, that the brazen serpent which Moses set 
up by God’s ordinance in the wilderness (Num. xxi. 8, 9) was an 
example of the use of images for religious purposes. This was a 


1 See Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Tri- 
umphante, Lib. 11. cap. 1x. ; Controvers. 
Tom. uu. p. 771. , 

2 The second commandment is joined 
with the first, according to the reckoning 
of the Church of Rome. ‘This is not to 
be esteemed a Romish novelty. It will 
be found so united in the Masoretic Bi- 
bles; the Masoretic Jews dividing the 
tenth commandment (according to our 
reckoning) into two. hat the Roman 
Church deals unfairly in is, that she 
teaches the commandments popularly 


only in epitome; and that so, having 
joined the first and second together, she 
virtually omits the second, recounting 
them in her catechisms, &c. thus, 1 Thou 
shalt have none other gods but me. 
2 Thou shalt not take the Name of the 
Lord thy God in vain. 8 Remember 
that thou keep holy the Sabbath day 
&c. By this method her children, and 
other less instructed members, are often 
ignorant of the existence in the Deca- 
logue of a prohibition against idolatry. 





Sxo. II] OF PURGATORY. 537 


figure of the Lord Jesus, the expected Messiah ; and the wounded 
Israelites were taught to look up to it for healing and deliverance. 
But beyond this it is said, that the Jews actually did adore the 
Ark of the Covenant, and that in so doing they must have adored 
the Cherubim which were upon it. And this most strangely is in- 
ferred from the words, “" Exalt ye the Lorp your God, and worship 
at His footstool ; for He is holy ” (Ps. xcix. 5) ; where the Vulgate 
reads, Adorate scabellum ejus, quoniam sanctus est; or, as some 
quote it, guoniam sanctum est. 
~ With every desire to feel candid towards those who are opposed 
to us, it is difficult to know how to treat such arguments as these. 
We willingly concede, that the iconoclastic spirit.of the Puritans 
was fuller of zeal than of judgment ; for if the figures of Cherubim 
were commanded in the temple, figures of angels and saints and 
storied windows in our cathedrals could scarcely be impious and 
idolatrous. But when we are told that the existence of such sym- 
bols near the mercy-seat involved a necessity that the Jew should 
worship them, we scarcely know whither such reasoning may carry 
us. If the Cherubim in the temple were worshipped, why were 
the golden calves of Jeroboam so foully idolatrous? It is mostly 
considered, that Jeroboam borrowed these very figures from the 
carvings of the sanctuary. How could that be holy in Jerusalem, 
which was vile in Dan and Bethel? Nay! the sin of Jeroboam 
was specially, that he made the calves to be worshipped ; whereas 
in the temple they were not for worship, but for symbolism. As 
for the brazen serpent, it was no doubt, like the Cherubim, a proof 
that such symbols are allowable ; and was also the instrument (like 
the rod of Moses) by which God worked wonderful miracles. But 
when it tempted the people to worship it, Hezekiah broke it in pieces 
(2 Kings xviii. 4), as thinking it better to destroy so venerable a 
memorial of God’s mercies, than to leave it as an incentive to sin. 
The argument from Ps. xcix. 5, is the only one which Bellar- 
mine (in many learned chapters on the subject) alleges in direct 
proof from Scripture that images are not only lawful, but adorable. 
Even if the Vulgate rendering (adorate scabellum) were correct, it 
would be a forlorn hope, with which to attack such a fortress as the 
second commandment. But the Hebrew (stim> smn) is far 
more correctly rendered by the English version, “« Bow down be- 
fore His footstool.”’ Though to fall down before God may be to 
worship Him, yet to fall down before his footstool is not necessarily 


1 See Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Triumph. Lib. τ. 6. x111. Lib. 11. 6. x11. Tom, 11. pp. 
708, 781 : 
6 


- a ae eS ee _ 


538 OF PURGATORY. [Anr, XXIL 


to worship His footstool. Hence the word may at times be prop- 
erly translated, “to worship ;” but here such a translation is alta- 
gether out of place. 

In short, if the Roman Church had never approached nearer to 
idolatry than the Jews when they worshipped in the courts of the 
temple, within which were symbolical figures of oxen and cherubim, 
than the high priest, when once a year he approached the very ark 
of the covenant and sprinkled the blood before the mercy-seat, or 
than the people in the wilderness, when they looked upon the bra- 
zen serpent and recovered, there would have been no controversy 
and no councils on the subject of image-worship. But when we 
know, that the common people are taught to bow down before stat- 
ues and pictures of our blessed Saviour, of His Virgin Mother, and 
of His saints and angels; though we are told that they make 
prayers, not to the images, but to those of which they are images, 
yet we ask, wherein does such worship differ from idolatry? No 
heathen people believed the image to be their God. They prayed 
not to the image, but to the god whom the image was meant to 
represent.! Nay! the golden calves of Jeroboam were doubtless 
meant merely as symbols of the power of Jehovah ; and the peo- 
ple, in bowing down before them, thought they worshipped the gods 
“which brought them up out of the land of Egypt” (1 Kings xii. 
28). But it isthe very essence of idolatry, not to worship God in 
spirit and in truth, but to worship Him through the medium of an 
image or representation. It is against this that the second com- 
mandment is directed: “Thou shalt not make to thyself any gra- 
ven image, nor the likeness of anythimg that is in heaven or earth, 
or under the earth — Thou shalt not bow down to it, nor worship 
it.” And it is not uncharitable to assert, that the ignorant peo- 
ple in ignorant ages have as much worshipped the figure of the 
Virgin and the image of our Lord upon the cross, as ever ignorant 
heathens ‘worshipped the statues of Baal or Jupiter, or as the Isra- 
elites worshipped the golden calf in the wilderness. It must even 
be added, painful as it is to dwell on such a subject, that divines of 
eminence in the Church of Rome have taught unchecked, that to 
the very images of Christ was due the same supreme worship which 
is due to Christ Himself, — even that Jatria, with which none but 
the Holy Trinity and the Incarnate Word must be approached. 


1 See a exactly stated, Arnob. adv. est theologorum sententia ” (says Azorius 
Gentes, Lib. vr. the Jesuit) “imaginem eodem honore et 
2 See this proved by numerous pas- cultu honorari et coli, quo colitur id eu- 
sages from distinguished Romanists by jus est ee ” — Jo. Azor. Institut, Mo- 
‘Archbishop Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ral. Tom. τ. Lib. 1x. cap. 9. 
chap. x. Dublin, 1624, p. 449. “" Constang 


ΨΥ ee Te ee a ee eee ee ee ———wa_ ee 
ms ΄ 


Sze. IL] OF PURGATORY. 589 


Bellarmine himself, who takes a middle course, states the above as 
one. out of three current opinions in the Church, and as held by 
Thomas Aquinas, Caietan, Bonaventura, and many others of high 
name ;! and though he himseif considers the worship of Jatria only 
improperly and per accidens due to an image, yet he says that “ the 
images of Christ and the saints are to be venerated, not only by 
accident or improperly, but also by themselves properly, so that them- 
selves terminate the veneration, as in themselves considered, and not 
only as they take the place of their Exemplar.”? If this be not to 
break one, and that not the least of God’s commandments, and 
to teach men so, it must indeed be hard to know how God’s com- 
mandments can be broken, and how kept. Even enlightened 
heathenism seldom went so far as to believe the worship to be 
due properly to the idol itself, and not merely to its original and 
prototype. 

It is unnecessary to recite the Scriptures which speak against 
idolatry and image-worship ; they are so patent and obvious. See 
for example, Exod. xx. 2-5; xxxii. 1-20. Levit. xix. 4; xxvi. 1. 
Deut. iv. 15-18, 23, 25; xvi. 21, 22; xxvii. 15; xxix. 17. 2 
Kings xviii. 4; xxiii. 4. Ps. cxv. 4. Isai. ii, 8, 9; xl. 18, 19, 
25; xlii.; xliv.; xlvi. 5-7. Acts xvii. 25, 29. Rom. i. 21, 23, 
25. 1 Cor. viii. 4; x. T; xii. 2. 1 John v. 21. Rev. ix. 20. 

2. Worshipping and Adoration of Relics. 

The arguments brought from Scripture to defend relic worship 
are — that miracles were wrought by the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 
xili. 21), by the hem of Christ’s garment (Matt. ix. 20-22), by 
‘‘ the shadow of Peter passing by ” (Acts v. 15), by handkerchiefs 
and aprons brought from the body of St. Paul (Acts xix. 12), — that 
the rod of Aaron and the pot of manna were preserved in the tem- 
ple, — that it is said (in Isai. xi. 10), “Τὴ Him (Christ) shall the 
Gentiles trust, and His sepulchre shall be glorious;” Jn Hum 
gentes sperabunt, et erit sepulchrum Ejus gloriosum.® 


1 De Eccles. Triumph. Lib. 11. ¢. xx. ; 
Controvers. Tom. 11. p. 801. Thomas 
Aquinas says : “‘ Sic sequitur quod eadem 
reverentia exhibeatur imagini Christi et 
ipsi Christo. Cum ergo Christus ado- 
retur adoratione latris consequens est 
quod ejus imago sit adoratione latrie 
adoranda.” — Summa, pt. 111. quest. 25, 
Artic. 8. See Usher, as above. 

2 « Tmagines Christi et sanctorum vene- 
randz sunt, non solum per accidens, vel 
improprie, sed etiam per se proprie, ita ut 
ups terminent venerationem ut in se 
considerantur, et non solum ut vicem 

.gerunt exemplaris.” — Ibid. c. 21, p. 


802. He goes on to show, that it should 
neither be said nor denied (especially in 
public discourses), that images should 
be worshipped with /atria (c. xxu1.). 
The images of Christ improperly and ἐν 
accident receive latria (c. xxx111.). He 
concludes by saying: “ Cultus, qui per 
se, proprie debetur imaginibus, est cul- 
tus quidem imperfectus, qui analogice 
et reductive pertinet ad speciem ejus 
cutie: qui debetur exemplari.” — c. xxy. 
8 


p- ς 
3 Bellarmin. De Eccl. Triumph. Lib. 11 
cap. 111.; Cont. Gen. Tom. 11. p. 746. 


_ ΝΗ. 


540 OF PURGATORY. (Arr. XX 


The last argument is derived solely from the Latin translation. 
The Hebrew, the Greek, the Chaldee, and other versions, haye 
“His rest,” or ‘His place of habitation shall be glorious.” 
Cnn ἀνάπαυσις). Even if it meant the sepulchre, which it 
does not, it would not follow that because it was glorious or hon- 
ourable, therefore it should be adored. There can be no question, 
that God has been pleased to give such honour to His saints, that 
in one instance the dead body of a prophet was the means of re- 
storing life to the departed, that in another, handkerchiefs brought 
from an Apostle were made instruments of miraculous cure. But 
we have no instance in Scripture of the garments or the bones of 
the saints being preserved for such purposes. All evidence from 
Holy Writ goes in the opposite direction. The Almighty buried 
the body of Moses, so that no man should know where it lay, Deut. 
xxxiv. 6; which seems purposely to have been done, that no super- 
stitious reverence should be paid to it. The bones of Elisha, by 
which so wonderful a miracle was wrought, were not preserved for 
any purpose of worship or superstition. The body of the holy 
martyr St. Stephen was by devout men “ carried to his burial, and 
great lamentation was made over him ;” but no relics of him are 
spoken of, nor of St. James, who followed him in martyrdom. 
Their bones were evidently, like those of their predecessors the 
prophets, left alone, and no man moved them (2 Kings xxiii. 18). 
The pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were preserved as memo- 
rials of God’s mercy ; but no one can imagine any worship paid to 
them. And the only relic to which we learn that worship was 
paid, namely, the brazen serpent, was on that very account broken 
in pieces by Hezekiah ; and he is commended for breaking it (2 
Kings xviii. 4), though of all relics it must have been the noblest 
and most glorious, reminding the people of their deliverance from 
Egypt, and giving them assurance of a still more glorious deliver- 
ance, to which all their hopes should point. But the very first 
principle of Scripture truth is, “* Thou shalt worship the Lord thy 
God, and Him only shalt thou serve ” (Matt. iv. 10). And though 
by degrees a superstitious esteem for the relics of martyrs crept 
into the Church, yet we have clear evidence that for some time no 
undue honour was paid to them, and that when it was, the pious 
and learned, instead of fostering, strove to check the course of the 
error. The contemporaries of St. Polycarp indignantly denied that 
they wished for his body for any superstitious purposes, or that they 
could worship any but Christ. And St. Augustine reproved the 


Δ See especially Martyr, Polycarp. c. 17, referred to above. 


Οὐ ee ee ee Ve ee ee eee me eee ee ee 


So. IL] OF PURGATORY. 541 


superstitious sale of relics, which, by his day, had grown into an 
abuse. Yet the Roman Church has authoritatively condemned 
such as deny that the bodies of martyrs or the relics of the saints 
are to be venerated.?. And some of her divines have even sanc- 
tioned the paying of the supreme worship of latria to the relics of 
the cross, the nails, the lance, and the garments of the crucified 
Redeemer.® 

3. Invocation of Saints. 

The divines of the Church of Rome defend this practice as fol- 
lows : — 

(1) Saints, not going to purgatory, go straight to Heaven, where 
they enjoy the presence of God. 

(2) Being then in the presence of God, they behold, in the face 
of God, the concerns of the Church on earth. 

(83) It is good to ask our friends on earth to pray for us; how 
much rather those who, being nearer God, have more avail with 
Him. 

(4) The Scripture contains examples of saint-worship. 

(1) The first position is sought to be established from Scripture, 
thus, — 

The thief on the cross went straight to Paradise, ¢. 6. to Heaven ! 
(Luke xxii. 43). “ We know that if our earthly house of this 
tabernacle be dissolved, we have a house not made with hands, eter- 
nal in the heavens”? (2 Cor. v. 1, comp. ver. 4). “ When He as- 
cended up on high, He led captivity captive”’ (Eph. iv. 8). 
“ Having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ’ (Phil. i. 23). 
‘“¢ The way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while 
as the first tabernacle was yet standing ” (Heb. ix. 8). ‘ Ye are 
come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the 
heavenly Jerusalem, to the general assembly of the first-born who 
are written in heaven .. . and to the spirits of just men made per- 
fect’ (Heb. xii. 22, 23). “ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 
vii. 59). White robes are given to the martyrs who cry from un- 
der the altar, ὁ. 6. the glory of the body after the resurrection (Rev. 
vi. 11). ‘* These are they which came out of great tribulation, and 
have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the 
Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve 
Him day and night in His temple” (Rev. vii. 14, 15). 

1 Augustin. Tom. vi. p. 498. vestium Christi, et imago crucifixi sunt 

2 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. De In- latria veneranda.” —Joh. de Turrec. 
vocatione, Veneratione, et Reliquiis Sanc- In Festo Invent. Crucis, q. 8; Beveridge, 


torum. on Artic. xx11. 
8 « Reliquiz crucis, clavorum, lances, 


542 OF PURGATORY. (Arr. XXUL 


It is admitted that in the old Testament the saints, being as yet 
in the limbus patrum, and therefore not in Heaven, could not he 
prayed to ;1 but since Christ’s descent into Hell and resurrection 
from the dead, all who die in Him, if not needing to go to purga- 
tory, go straight to glory, and therefore, reigning with Christ, may 
be invocated. 

It must be remembered, that these arguments for the immediate 
‘glorification of the saints run side by side with arguments fora pur- 
gatory. The latter is an absolutely necessary supplement to the 
former: without it, the Roman Catholic divines could not get rid 
of the force of the arguments in favour of an intermediate state. 
The two must therefore succeed or fail together. Now, it. is 
unnecessary to repeat the arguments already brought forward 
against purgatory, or those (under Article III.) in proof that souls 
go, not straight to Heaven after death, but to an intermediate state 
of bliss or woe, awaiting the resurrection of the dead. All we 
need consider now is this. Do the above texts of Scripture con- 
travene that position? The first proves, that the thief went with 
our Saviour where He went from the Cross; that is, not to 
Heaven, but to Hades, to the place of souls departed, which, in the 
case of the redeemed, is called Paradise. Our Lord went not to 
Heaven till he He rose from the grave. The second proves that, 
when this body is dissolved, we may yet hope, at the general Res- 
urrection, for a glorified body. But the context proves clearly, 
that, between death and judgment, the souls of the saints remain 
without the body, in bliss, but yet longing for the resurrection. 
(See 2 Cor. v. 2, 3,4, 6, 8, 10). The passage from Ephes. iv. 
only proves that Christ conquered death. That from Phil. i. shows 
that the disembodied spirit in Paradise is admitted to some presence 
with its Saviour; as does that from Acts vii. Heb. ix. 8, merely 
teaches that Christ is the way to Heaven, a way not manifested 
under the old Law. Heb. xii. speaks of the Church as composed 
of the first-born, whose names are in God’s book, and as having 
fellowship with the angels, and with departed saints, who have fin- 
ished their course. The first passage from the Apocalypse (vi. 11), 
if taken in its context (see Rev. vi. 9), is a strong proof that even 
martyrs are in a state of expectant, not of perfect bliss ; and if the 
white robes really mean the glorified body at the resurrection, then 


1 “ Notandum est ante Christi adven- Testamento ut diceretur, Sancte Abra- 
tum qui moriebantur non intrabant in ham, ora pro me: sed solum orabant 
celum, nec Deum videbant, nec cognos- homines ejus temporis Deum.” — Bel- 
cere poterant ordinarie preces su larmine, De Eccles. Triumph. 1. 19. 
tium. Ideo non fuit consuetum in Υ. 2 See above, pp. 88, 95, &e. 


eee Oe 


Src. IL] OF PURGATORY. 


543 
- must we believe yet more clearly than ever, that the very martyrs 
remain “ under the altar” until the time of the resurrection of the 
just. The second passage (from Rev. vii. 14, 15) is probably a 
prophetic vision of the bliss of the saints, after the general judgment, 
and therefore plainly nihil ad rem. 

It is said by the Romanists that a few heretics have denied the 
immediate beatification of the saints, Tertullian, Vigilantius, the 
Greeks at Florence, Luther, Calvin ;1 and it is inferred that all the 
orthodox fathers have maintained 1.2 Tertullian is here a heretic, 
though, when he seems to favour purgatory, he is a Catholic divine. 
But the truth is, even their own divines have allowed, that a very 
large number of the greatest names of antiquity believed that the 
saints did not enjoy the vision of God till after the general judg- 
ment. Franciscus Pegna mentions, as of that persuasion, Irenzeus, 
Justin M., Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Origen, Ambrose, Chrys- 
ostom, Augustine, Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Theodoret, 
Aretas, Gicumenius, Theophylact, and Euthymius.? And our own 
great Bishop Bull pronounces it to have been the doctrine of the 
whole Catholic Church for many ages, ‘‘ that the souls of the faith- 
ful, in the state of separation, though they are in a happy condition 
in Paradise, yet are not in the third Heaven, nor do enjoy the 
beatific vision till the Resurrection . . . . Nay, this was a doctrine 
so generally received in the time of Justin Martyr, that is, in the 
first succession of the Apostles, that we learn from the same Justin 
that there were none but some profligate heretics that believed the 
souls of the faithful, before the Resurrection, to be received into 
Heaven. (Dialog. cim Tryphone, pp. 306, 307. Paris, 1636).” 4 

Yet this immediate beatification of the saints is the very foun- 
dation of saint-worship. That can be but a slender foundation for 
so vast a superstructure, which the first fathers and the greatest 
writers of antiquity (even our enemies being the judges) could not 
find in the word of God, and did not believe to be true. Conced- 
ing the utmost that we can, we must yet maintain that the evi- 
dence from Scripture is far more against, than in favour of, this 
foundation, and that the first and greatest of the fathers utterly 
rejected it. 

(2) If the first position cannot be established, of course the see- 


1 See Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Tri- Inquisitor. comment. 21, apud Usher, 
μι ἀτάρ τ. 1; Controv. Gener. Tom. 11. Answer to a Jesuit, chap. 1x. ; who quotes 
6 


᾿ ‘ also Thomas Stapleton to the same pur- 
2 The testimonies in favour of it from 


the fathers are cited, Bellarmine, udbi su- 
pra, Lib. 1. ο. 4, 5. . 
8 Fr. Pegna, in part. τι. Directorii 


port. 
* Bull, Vindication of the Church of Eng- 
land, § x11. 


544 OF PURGATORY. [Anr. XXII 


ond must fall; though even if the first were granted, it does by no ᾿ 
means seem to follow that the second would stand. For even if 
saints departed always behold the face of God, it does not certainly 
follow that thereby they have the omniscience of God. That they 
continue to take an interest in their fellow-worshippers, children of 
_ the same Father, members of the same body with themselves, we 
may reasonably believe ; but that they know all the prayers which 
each one on earth utters, even the secret silent prayer of the heart, 
we cannot at least be certain —or rather we should think most 
improbable. 

(8) It is said that saints on earth pray for each other, and ex- 
hort one another to pray for them, (Heb. xiii. 18, James v. 16) ; 
why not then ask the saints in light to pray for us, who, nearer the 
throne of God, have more interest with Him ἢ 

Yet, who does not see the difference between joining our prayers 
with our brethren on earth, so through the one Mediator drawing 
nigh to God in common supplication for mercies and mutual inter- 
cession for each other, and the invocating saints above, with all 
the circumstances of religious worship, to go to God for us, and so 
to save us from going to Him for ourselves? If, indeed, we could 
be quite certain, that our departed friends could hear us, when we 
spoke to them, there might possibly be no more evil in asking them 
to continue their prayers for us, than there could be in asking those 
prayers from them whilst on earth, — no evil, that is, except the 
danger that this custom might go further and so grow worse. This, 
no doubt, was all that the interpellation of the martyrs was in the 
early ages ; and if it had stopped here, it would have never been 
censured. But who will say that Romish saint-worship is no 
more ? 

In the Church of Rome, when it is determined who are to be 
‘saints, they are publicly canonized, 7. 6. they are enrolled in the 
Catalogue of Saints; it is decreed, that they shall be formally held 
to be saints, and called so; they are invoked in the public prayers 
of the Church: churches and altars to their memory are dedicated 
to God ; the sacrifices of the Eucharist and of public prayers are 
publicly offered before God to their honour ; their festivals are cel- 
ebrated: their images are painted with a glory round their heads: 
their relics are preserved and venerated.1_ They are completely 
invocated as mediators between God and man; so that those who 
fear to go to God direct, are encouraged to approach Him through 
the saints, as being not so high and holy as to inspire fear and 

1 Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Triumph. 1.7. 





Sxc. ΠῚ 


OF PURGATORY. 


545 
dread. Herein the very office of Christ is invaded, “" the OnE 
Mediator between God and man” (1 Tim. ii. 5); a High Priest, 
who can “be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” and 
through whom we may “come boldly unto the throne of grace, 
that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” 
(Heb. iv. 15, 16). Nay, more than this, direct prayer is made to 
the saints for protection and deliverance ; and even in prayer 
to God Himself, He is reminded of the protection and patronage 
of the saints.2~ And we know, that, not only among the vulgar, 
but with the authority of the most learned, and those canonized 
saints, prayers have been put up to the Blessed Virgin, to use a 
mother’s authority, and command her Son to have mercy upon sin- 
ners.2 What support can all this derive from the injunctions to 
us in Scripture to pray for one another, and the assurances that 
“‘ the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much”? 

(4) Next it is alleged, that Scripture contains positive exam- 
ples of the worship of saints and angels. 

Bellarmine cites the following: — 

Ps. xcix. 5: “ Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at His 
footstool ; for He is holy,” (Adorate scabellum pedis ejus, quoniam 
sanctum est): a passage which has been already considered. Gen. 
xvill. 2, xix. 1, Abraham and Lot bow down to the angels. Numb. 
xxii, 81, Balaam, when he saw the angel, “fell flat on his face.” 
1 Sam. xxviii. 14, “ And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and 
he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.” 
1 Kings xviii. 7, ““ And as Obadiah was in the way, behold Elijah 
met him, and he knew him, and fell on his face, and said, Art 
thou that my Lord Elijah?” 2 Kings ii. 15, ““ When the sons of 
the prophets saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest upon 
Elisha: and they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the 


eo + eee 


1 One reason alleged in favour of 
saint-worship is ‘“ Propter Dei reveren- 
tiam: ut peccator, qui Deum offendit. 
quia non audet in propria persona adire, 
occurrat ad sanctos, eorum patrocinia 
implorando. »” — Alexand. de Hales, Sum- 
ma, pt. 1v. quest. 26, memb. 8, artic. 5. 
Vide Usher, ubi supra. 

2“ Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty 
God, that Thy faithful, who rejoice under 
the name and protection of the most 


blessed Virgin Mary, may, by her pious © 


intercession, be delivered from all evils 

here on earth, and be brought. to the 

eternal joys of Heaven. Through.” 

‘Coll. for the Feast of the name of B. 

V. Mary;” “ Missal for the Laity,” 
69 


published by authority of Thomas Bishop 
of Cambysopolis, and Nicholas Bishop of 
Melipotamus, Sept. 25, 1845. 

Lane Imperatrix et Domina nostra ben- 
ignissima, jure matris impera tuo dilec- 
tissimo Filio Domino nostro Jesu Christo, 
ut mentes nostras ab amore terrestrium 
ad ceelestia desideria erigere dignetur.” 
— Bonaventura, Corona B. Marie Vir- 
ginis, Oper. Tom. v1. 

“Inclina vultum Dei super nos : pone 
Illum’ peceatoribus misereri.’’ — Jd. 
Psalterio B. Marie Virginis, Ibid. 

See Archbishop Usher, as above, who 
gives many passages at length from Ber- 
nardin de Bustis, Jacob de Valentia, Mg 
briel Biel, &c., to the like effect. 


546 OF PURGATORY (Ant. XXII. 


ground before him.” Josh. v. 14, 15; when Joshua knew that 
he was in the presence of the Captain of the Lord’s host, * he fell 
on his face to the earth, and did worship.’ The angel did not 
forbid him to worship him, but said, ‘* Loose thy shoe from off thy 
foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy.” Dan. ii. 46, 
“The king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped 
Daniel; and commanded that they should offer an oblation and 
sweet odour to him.” Ὁ 

Now, in the first place, it is certainly not a little strange, that, 
whereas the divines of the Church of Rome tell us that no prayers 
were offered to the old Testament saints, because they were in the 
limbus patrum, and not in Heaven ;? yet, in their Scriptural proof 
of saint-worship, they bring all their arguments from the old Tes- 
tament only. There must be something rotten here. And we 
need not go far to see what the ground of their preference for such 
a line of argument is. The Eastern form of salutation to princes, 
honoured guests, and elders, was, and still is, a profound prostra- 
tion of the body, which is easily construed into an act of religious 
worship. Now Abraham and Lot evidently (from the context and 
from Heb. xiii. 2) did not know that the angels who appeared to 
them were angels. They thought them strangers on a journey, 
and exercised Eastern hospitality to them. They perceived that 
they were strangers of distinction, and exhibited Eastern tokens 
of respect. Thus, “ being not forgetful to entertain strangers, they 
entertained angels unawares.” 

The same may be said of all the above instances, except per- 
haps the last two. Falling down at the feet was the common mode 
of respectful salutation, and that especially when favours were to 
be asked. Thus Abigail fell at the feet of David (1 Sam. xxv. 
24); Esther fell at the feet of Ahasuerus (Esth. viii. 2); the ser- 
vant is represented as falling at the feet of his master (Matt. xviii. 
29). This was no sign of religious worship. Even Balaam, 
though he fell down before the angel, by no means appears to have 
worshipped him. He fell down from fear, and in token of respect. 
The case of Joshua, when he met the Captain of the Lord’s host, 
may be different. ΤῸ is well known to have been the belief of many 
of the fathers, and of many eminent divines after them, that the 
Captain of the Lord’s host was the second Person of the Holy 
Trinity, the eternal Son of God.? And it is certainly as fair te 

1 Bellarmin. De Κοίου, Triumph. x1 18. * See Justin M. Dialagus,p. 284; Based. 

. 4.1. 2. ᾿ 


Cont. Gen. Tom. 11. p. 708. 
3 See Bellarmin. ibia. 1. 19, as quoted 
ve. 


Sec. II.] OF PURGATORY. 547 


infer from the worship paid to him, that he was God, as to infer 
from it, that worship ought to be paid to any beside God. 

We are reduced then to one single instance, and that the in- 
stance of an idolatrous king, who soon afterwards bade every one 
worship a golden image. He indeed appears, in a rapture of as- 
tonishment, to have fallen down to worship the prophet Daniel — 
not a glorified saint reigning with Christ— but one of those old 
fathers, who had to abide after death in the /imbus, until our Lord’s 
descent to Hades should rescue them. 

But is there no instance in the new Testament? The new Tes- 
tament is ever the best interpreter of the old. Are there no ex- 
amples of the worship of saints or angels there? The Roman 
Catholic divines have not adduced any; but their opponents cannot 
deny that there are some cases of such worship recorded, and 
those too of a worship which cannot be explained to mean merely 
bowing down in token of respect to a superior. 

One example is that of Cornelius: ‘as Peter was coming in, 
Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshipped him” 
(προσεκύνησεν). This is very like the case of Nebuchadnezzar 
and Daniel; but with this advantage over it, that. Cornelius was no 
idolater, and St. Peter was not a prophet of the old Testament, for 
whom the schoolmen tell us a limbus was in store, but the chief of 
the Apostles, to whom the keys of the kingdom were committed, 
from whom the Roman Pontiff inherits his right to forgive and 
retain sins, and who (on their showing) at death was sure of pass- 
ing straight to the highest kingdom of glory, thenceforth to reign 
with Christ, and to receive the prayers of the faithful. How then 
does St. Peter, whose authority none will question, treat. the wor- 
ship of Cornelius? ‘ Peter took him up, saying, Stand up: I my- 
self also am a man” (Acts x. 25, 26). 

We may remember another case somewhat similar, though not 
quite identical, when ‘the Apostles Barnabas and Paul rent their 
clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out and saying, Sirs, 
why do ye these things? we also are menof like passions with 
you” (Acts xiv. 14,15). But perhaps we shall be told. that it was 
latria not dulia, that the men of Lycaonia meant to pay to them. 

However, we are not confined to saint-worship in the new Tes- 
tament ; we can discover manifest traces of angel-worship too. 
Twice, one whose example we may rarely refuse to follow, the 
blessed Apostle St. John, fell down to worship the angel, who 
showed him the mysteries of the Apocalypse. The same word 
(προσκυνῆσαι) is used here as was used of Cornelius and St. Peter, 


548 OF PURGATORY. (Art. XXIL 


and as is used (in the LXX.) of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel 
(προσεκύνησε, Dan. ii. 46). And what does the angel of God say 
to the Apostle? ‘See thou do it not; I am thy fellow-servant, 
and of thy brethren, that have the testimony of Jesus: worship 
God” (Rey. xix. 10). And again, “See thou do it not: for I am 
thy fellow-servant .... worship God” (Rev. xxii. 9). 

These are cases as plain as any in the old Testament can be. 
It is not very likely that St. John would have offered the supreme 
worship of latria to the angel. Therefore, no doubt, all kind of 
worship was forbidden him. And if only latria be forbidden, but 
dulia be a pious or necessary custom, it is certainly remarkable 
that neither the angel explained to St. John, nor St. Peter to 
Cornelius, nor St. Paul to the people of Lycaonia, the very impor- 
tant distinction between /atria and dulia, the great sin of offering 
the former, and the great piety of offering the latter, to created but 
glorified intelligences; especially as the ambiguous word worship 
(προσκυνῆσαι) includes them both. Moreover, as God’s revelations 
became successively clearer, and there is a gradual development of 
Divine truth, it is truly unaccountable that so large a germ of 
saint and angel-worship as the Roman Catholics discover in the 
old Testament, should have developed into nothing more manifest 
than what we thus find in the new. St. Paul, we know, earnestly 
warns his converts against “the worshipping of angels,”— and the 
word he uses (θρήσκεια.) appears to comprehend all kinds of worship 
(Col. ii. 18). St. Paul was not a writer who neglected accurate 
distinctions, and we may fairly say, he was as profound a reasoner 
‘and as deep a theologian as any human being, even under Divine 
revelation, was ever privileged to become. But there is no ques- 
‘tion raised by him about dulia or hyperdulia. It is simply * Let no 
man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility, and wor- 
shipping of angels” (Col. ii. 18). It isa fearful thing to think, that 
this voluntary humility,and unauthorized worship of inferior beings, 
may beguile of their reward those who should worship God only. 

One more instance is too pregnant to be omitted. Once, and 
but once, in the history of the Bible, do we hear that an angel 
claimed worship for himself. And he claimed it of Him whose 
example in worship, as in everything else, we are bound to follow. 
An angel of exceeding power once said to Jesus, “ All these things 
will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then 
said Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou 
‘shalt neces the Lord tier God, and Him only shalt thou serve” 
(Matt. iv. 9, 10). 


ARTICLE XXIII 


—_e—- 


Of Ministering in the Congregation. 


Ir is not lawful for any man to take 
upon him the office of public preaching, or 
ministering the Sacraments in the Con- 
gregation, before he be lawfully called, 
and sent to execute the same. And 
those we ought to judge lawfully called 
and sent, which be chosen and called to 
this work by men who have public au- 
thority given unto them in the Congre- 
gation, to call and send ministers into the 
Lord’s vineyard. 


De Vocatione Ministrorum. 


Now licet cuiquam sumere sibi munus 
publice predicandi, aut administrandi 
sacramenta in Ecclesia, nisi prius fuerit 
ad hee obeunda legitime vocatus et mig- 
sus. Atque illos legitime vocatos et mis- 
sos existimare debemus, qui per homi- 
nes, quibus potestas vocandi ministros, 
atque mittendi in Vineam Domini, pub- 
lice concessa est in Ec¢lesia, cooptati fu- 
erint, et asciti in hoc opus. 





Section I. — HISTORY. 


YN the Articles concerning the Church comes naturally 


this concerning the ministry. 


The wording of the Article demands some attention. 


The first 


sentence is derived from the fourteenth Article of the Confession 
of Augsburg, as drawn up in 1531. That article runs: ‘ De 
ordine Ecclesiastico docent, quod nemo debeat in Ecclesia publice 
docere, aut Sacramenta administrare, nisi rite vocatus.”’ 1 

In the XIII. Articles, supposed to have been agreed upon be- 
tween the English and German divines, (A. p. 1538,) the Xth 
Article is: ‘‘ De ministris Ecclesize docemus, quod nemo debeat 
publice docere, aut sacramenta ministrare, nisi rite vocatus, et qui- 
dem ab his, penes quos in ecclesia, juxta verbum Dei et leges ac 
consuetudines uniuscujusque regionis, jus est vocandi et admit- 
tendi.” 2 

The twenty-fourth of the XLII. Articles of 1552, is worded 
exactly as our present twenty-third, and evidently only slightly 
changed from the above-cited Article of 1538.8 


1 Sylloge, p. 127. In 1540 we find the 
following clause added: ‘‘Sicut et Pau- 
lus precipit Tito ut in civitatibus pres- 
byteros constituat.” — Syll. p. 174. 


ders not the grace of the Sacraments.’ log 
it νὰν Cranmer, Iv. Appendix, P. 
6 


8 The heading of the Articles bo 


2 Then follows a declaration, that no 
bishop should intrude on another. diocese, 
and that the wickedness of ministers hin- 


in those of 1552 and in those of 1662 
is, Nemo in Ecclesia ministret nisi vocatus. 


550 OF MINISTERING (Arr. XXIIL 


As it now stands, it contains two parts : — 
I. That no one may assume the office of the ministry without 
8 lawful call and mission. 

II. That calling and mission can only be given by certain 
authorities, who are the ministers of ordination. 

The latter portion of the Article is somewhat vaguely worded: 
the reason for which is easily traced to the probable fact, that the 
original draught of the Article was agreed on in a conference 
between the Anglican and Lutheran divines. It would have beer 
painful to the latter, if a strong assertion of the need of episcopa’ 
ordination had been inserted, when they were debarred from epis- 
copal regimen. Hence it is but generally asserted, that lawfm 
calling can only be given by those, “who have public authority ir 
the Church to send labourers into the Vineyard.” But then we 
may observe, ‘that the authority of the English Ordinal is expressly 
made the subject of Article XXXVI.; and to see the force of the 
latter on our present Article, we must have recourse to the Ordi- 
nal, as expressing the mind of the reformers on this subject. 

One expression in this Article requires to be especially observed. 

In the Confession of Augsburg, the XIIT. Articles of 1538, and 

the Latin Articles of 1552, 1562, 1571, the word Ecclesia occurs 
twice. But in the English translations this word is rendered Con- 
gregation. Toa modern reader, used tothe language of Congre- 
gational dissenters, this translation has a different sound to that, 
which it must have had at the time of the Reformation. The 
ancient Church of the Jews is called “the Congregation of the 
Lord.” The XIXth Article defines the Church as a “ Congrega- 
tion of faithful men,” &c. Accordingly, the word Eceelesia, instead 
of being rendered Church, is rendered Congregation, meaning the 
‘whole Congregation of Christ’s people, 7. 6. the Church or Body of 
Christ. The more modern idea of a Congregational election of 
ministers had evidently not suggested itself, or the word would 
have been avoided. 

We may now proceed to our history. 


I. No one can question, that very early in the Church there 
existed a distinction widely marked between the Clergy (κλῆρος, 
κληρικοὶ, Clerict) and the Laity (λαὸς, Laici). The only doubt 
which can be raised, is, whether such a distinction was quite prim- 
itive, or came in, in the second and third centuries, through the 
‘ambition of ecclesiastics, 

It is a most happy circumstance, that the very earliest of the 


Sec. I] IN THE CONGREGATION. 551 


Christian fathers, Clemens Romanus, the companion of St. Paul, 
has left us clear testimony on this head. Giving instructions con- 
cerning the duty of Christians towards those who minister to God, 
he first adduces the examples of the Jewish economy, in which the 
chief priest, and the Levite, have all their proper ministries, “* and 
the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to 
laymen.” 1 He then goes on to say, “* The Apostles have preached 
to us from our Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ 
therefore was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ ; so both were 
orderly sent according to the will of God . . . . Having received 
their commands . . . . and preaching through countries and cities, 
they appointed the first-fruits of their conversions to be bishops and 
deacons over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved 
them by the Spirit.”2 Then again, referring to the election of 
the seed of Aaron to the priesthood, in order to avoid contention,’ 
he continues: ‘So likewise our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that there should contentions arise upon account of the 
ministry ; And therefore, having a perfect foreknowledge of this, 
they appointed persons, as we have said before, and then gave 
direction, how, when they should die, other chosen and approved 
men should succeed in their ministry. Wherefore we cannot 
think that those may justly be thrown out of their ministry who 
were appointed by them, or afterwards chosen by other eminent 
men, with the consent of the whole Church . ... Blessed are 
those presbyters who, having finished their course before those 
times, have obtained a faithful and perfect dissolution; for they 
have no fear, lest any one should turn them out of the place which 
is now appointed for them.” 4 

Here, in the very earliest of the fathers, we have plainly the dis- 
tinction of clergy and laity, the clergy spoken of at one time as 
presbyters, at another as bishops and deacons; their mode of ap- 
pointment in succession from the Apostles, and the duty of the 
people to be submissive and affectionate to them. 

Ignatius speaks in language so strong, of the necessity of obe- 
dience to bishops, presbyters, and deacons, that the very strength of 
the expressions has been the chief reason for doubting the genu- 
ineness of his epistles. The seven shorter epistles, since Bishop 
Pearson’s able defence of them, have generally been admitted to 
be genuine. The late discovery of a Syriac translation of three 
of them has again opened the question; their learned editor and 


16 λαϊκὸς ἄνϑρωπος τοῖς λαϊκοῖς mpo- 2 Thid. ο. 42. 
στάγμασιν dédetut. —Clem. R. 1 Zn Corinth. 3 ¢. 43. 
c. 40. £ Ὁ, 44, 


§52 OF MINISTERING 


translator contending that the Syriac represents the true text, and 
that even the shorter Greek epistles, which are longer than the 
Syriac, have suffered from interpolation. This is no place to enter 
into a controversy of such extent; it is, however, satisfactory to 
find, that the short Syriac epistles, as they contain the most im- 
portant testimonies to the great doctrine of the Trinity and the 
Incarnation,! so do they contain most strong and unmistakable lan- 
guage on the ministry and the three orders of the ministry : ‘ Give 
heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul 
be for those? who are subject to the bishop, presbyters, and dea- 
cons : may I have my portion with them in God.” ὃ 

Irenzeus speaks distinctly of successions of presbyters in the 
Church from the time of the Apostles ;* says, that he was able to 
reckon up those who had been made bishops by the Apostles, and 
their successors even to his own time ; ὅ and recounts the succession 
of bishops at Rome from St. Peter and St. Paul, and at Smyrna 
from St. Polycarp ;® to which successions he attaches deep impor- 
tance. . 

Clement of Alexandria distinguishes the presbyter and deacon 
from the layman,’ and the lay from the priestly. He uses the 
term κλῆρος, clergy ;® and speaks of the three degrees in the 
Church militant, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons,” which he 
compares to the angelic orders in Heaven." 

Tertullian bears testimony to the existence of a distinction be- 
tween clergy and laity in his day; and charges the heretics with 
confounding the offices of layman and cleric.!2 The three orders of 
bishops, presbyters, and deacons, are enumerated together ; '* and 
he tells us that the chief priest, ἡ 6. the bishop, had the right to 
baptize, as also had presbyters and deacons, but not without the 
authority of the bishop.!* 


1 See, for instance, ones Ad Ephes. 
6. 1, 9,18 (19 in the Greek), Ad Polyc. 


(Arr. XXII 


8 Stromata, Lib. v. pp. 665, 666 ; where 
λαϊκῆς ἀπιστίας is opposed to ἱερατικὴ ἧια- 


ὁ. 8, where the Syriac has all the same 
remarkable expressions as the Greek. 
See especially in the first passage, 
Ephes. c, 1, ἀναζωπυρῆσαντες ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ 


Ja ba, 


3 ᾿Αντίψυχον ἐγὼ τῶν ὑποτασσομένων, κ. 
λ 


τ. Δ. 

8 Ignat. Ad Polyc. c. 6. 

4 ‘Ado. Her. τ 2. 

5 “Habemus annumerare eos, qui ab 
Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in eccle- 
siis, et successores eorum usque ad nos.” 
“ται, 8. 

5 Ibid. 

7 κἂν πρεσβύτερος ἡ, κἂν διάκονος, κἄν 

» — Stromat, Lib. 111. p. 652. 


κονία. 

9 « Quis dives salvetur,”” p. 959. 

10 Stromat. Lib. v1. p. 798. 

11 See Bp. Kaye’s Clement of Alexan 
dria, p. 468. 

12 “ Alius hodie episcopus, cras alius ; 
hodie diaconus qui cras lector; hodie 
presbyter, qui cras laicus. Nam et lai- 


. cis sacerdotalia munera injungunt.” — De 


Prescript. ς, 41. 

18 See the last passage; also De Fugd, 
ce. 11, 

“Dandi (baptismum) quidem habet 
jus summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus ; 
dehine presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen 
sine episcopi auctoritate, propter ecclesia 
honorem.” — De Baptismo, c. 17. 


Src. 11 ᾿ IN THE CONGREGATION. 553 


He speaks of receiving the Eucharist only from the presbyters.1 
The office of the bishop was, according to him, of apostolic institu- 
tion; and in the Catholic Church the successions of the bishops 
could be traced to the Apostles, as the succession at Smyrna from 
Polycarp, placed there by St. John, that at Rome from Clemens, 
placed there by St. Peter.? 

It is true that Tertullian claims for all Christians, that they are 
priests, and contends that, in places where there are no clergy, 
laymen may exercise the priestly offices, may baptize, and even 
celebrate the Eucharist. But this is only in case of extreme neces- 
sity ; his strong assertion of this is in a tract, written after he had 
seceded from the Church ; and, even allowing the utmost possible 
weight to the passage, it does not prove the non-existence of a dis- 
tinct order of the clergy, but only that, in case of absolute neces 
sity, that distinction was not to be observed.® 

Origen is very express on the office of the clergy,* on the power 
of the keys as committed to them,® on the duty of obedience to 
them. 

We are now arrived at the Cyprianic age, when no one doubts 
that the distinction between lay and cleric was strongly marked 
and much insisted on. Some have contended, that the distinction 
was not from the first; but none can deny, that by this time it 
was universally accepted. Hilary the deacon, whose commentaries 
on St. Paul’s epistles are appended to the works of St. Ambrose, 
is indeed cited as saying that, in the beginning, in order to increase 
the Church, the power to preach and baptize was given to all, but 
that, when the Church spread abroad, a more regular constitution 
was ordained, so that none of the clergy were permitted to intrude 
into offices not committed to themselves.’ But this does not prove 
even that Hilary thought the distinction of lay and cleric not to be 
Apostolical. It is most probable from the context, that by the 
word all, omnibus, he means not all the faithful, but all the clergy ; 


1 « Eucharistie sacramentum non de 
aliorum manu quam presidentium sumi- 
mus.”’ — De Corona, 3. 

2 De Prescript. ς. 82. 

8 De Exhort. Castitat. c. 7. See also 


Deo ordinatus est pater? Non subjiciar 
presbytero qui mihi Domini dignatione 
preepositus est ?”’ 

7 “ Ut eresceret plebs et multiplicare- 
tur omnibus inter initia concessum est 


De Baptismo, ce. 17. And consult Bp. 
Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 224; and Bingham, 
E. A. Bk. τ. ch. v. sect. 4. 

* See Homil. 11. in Numer.; Homil. 
x11. in Lucam. 

5 In Matt. Tom. x11. num. 14. 

6 Homil. xx. in Lucam. “Si Jesus 
Filius Dei subjicitur Joseph:et Marie, 
ego non subjiciar episcopo, qui mihi a 

' 70 


et evangelizare et baptizare et Scripturas 
in ecclesia explanare. At ubi autem 
omnia loca circumplexa est ecclesia, con- 
venticula constituta sunt, et rectores et 
cetera officia in ecclesiis sunt ordinata, 
ut nullus de clero auderet, qui ordinatus 
non esset, presumere officium, q sci- 
ret non sibi creditum.”’ — Hilar. Diac. Jn 
Epist. Eph. ec. rv. v. 12. 


554 OF MINISTERING 


who at first performed all sacred functions indiscriminately, but 
afterwards were limited according to their distinctions of bishop, 
presbyter, and deacon. And even if he meant that all the faithful 
had at first a ministerial commission ; yet still he clearly intended 
to fix the more regular constitution of the Church to the Apostolic 
age, before the close of which the Church might be said to have 
spread itself everywhere, and therefore needed regular establish- 
ment.1 So that this passage makes nothing against the Apostolical 
origin of the order of clergy, and their distinction from the laity? 
So necessary did the fathers consider the office of the ministry, 
that St. Jerome tells us, “ There is no Church where there are not 
priests.” And St. Chrysostom says, “" Since the Sacraments are 
necessary to salvation, and all these things are performed by the 
hands of the priesthood, how, without them, shall any man be 
able to avoid the fire of hell, or to obtain the promised crown ?”# 
The opinions of Christians of all ages, and almost all sects, have 
been in favour of the necessity of a distinct call to the ministry, 
and of an order regularly set apart for the executing of that office. 
Luther condemns it as an error invented by the devil, that men 
should say that they have a talent from the Lord, and therefore 
must of necessity assume the office of preaching. They should 
wait, till they are called to the ministry. If their Master wants 
them, He will call them; “If they teach uncalled, it will not be 
without injury to themselves and their hearers; for Christ will not 
be with them.”® The Confession of Augsburg speaks of the 
ministry of the word and Sacraments as divinely instituted ; con- 
demns the Anabaptists, who teach that men can receive the Spirit, 
without the external word ; and says, that none may minister the 
word, and Sacraments, not rightly called to it.6 The Helvetie 
Confession of the Zuinglians declares the office of minister to be 


(Arr. XXIII. 


*“ ancient and ordained of God ; 


not of recent, or of human ordi- 


nation.”’7 Calvin says, that ‘‘no one must be accounted a minister 


1 See Bingham, Book 1. c. v. § 4, and 
Mr. Morrison’s note to his translation of 
Neander’s Church History, 1. p. 252. 

2 St. Jerome tells us the reason of the 
name κλῆρος, clerici, “ Propterea vocantur 
elerici, vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel 
quia Dominus sors, id est pars, clerico- 
rum est.’’— Ad Nepotian. De Vita Cleri- 
corum, ‘Tom, 1v. Part 11, p. 259. 

8 “Ecclesia non est, que non habet 
sacerdotes.”— Dial. c. Lucifer. c. 8. 

4 El γὰρ ob divarai τις εἰσελϑεῖν εἰς τὴν 
ΝΣ pets οὐρωνῶν, ἐὰν μὴ δι ὕδατος ~ 

νεύματος aig καὶ τρώγων τὴν 
σάρκα τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ τὸ aurea πίνων, 


ἐκβέβληται τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, πάντα δὲ ταῦτα 
de’ ἑτέρου μὲν οὐδενὸς, μόνον δὲ διὰ τῶν ἁγίων 
ἐκείνων ἐπιτελεῖται χειρῶν, τῶν τοῦ leptog 
λέγω, πῶς ἄν τις τούτων ἐκτὸς, ἢ τὸ τῆς 
γεεννῆς ἐκφυγεῖν δυνῇσεται πῦρ, ἣ τῶν ἀπο. 
κειμένων στεφάνων τυχεῖν ; ---- Chrysost. De 
Sueerdot. Lib. 111. 

δ “Qui non vocatus docet, non sine 
damno, et suo, et auditorum, docet, quod 
Christus non sit cum eo.” — Luther, Jn 
wer 1. 1, Tom. v. p. 215. os 

ὃ Confess. August. pars 1. Art. Vv. 
Syllog. ἢ Art. χιν. p. 127. 
hig Confess. Helvet. c. xvi11. ; Syllog. p. 


Src. 1] IN THE CONGREGATION. 555 


of Christ, except he be regularly called... . If so great a min- 
ister as St. Paul dares not arrogate to himself to be heard in the 
Church, but because he has been ordained to this office by the 
Lord’s command, and faithfully discharges his duty, how great 
would be his impudence who should seek this honour destitute of 
both these qualifications !” + 

The Church of England especially expresses her opinions in the 
Ordinal, where, besides the language of the Preface and the words 
of the Services themselves, it is ordered, that ** There shall be a 
sermon declaring... . how necessary the order of priests is in the 
Church of Christ.” 

Since the Reformation, sects have arisen which underrate the 
necessity of the ministry and of a call to it. The Anabaptists ap- 
pear to have done this. The latter Remonstrants, as represented 
by Episcopius, seem to have thought a fluency of speech and ac- 
ceptableness to the congregation a sufficient mission.?7, The Quak- 
ers, and several fanatical sects, investing all Christians with minis- 
terial authority, have abrogated all distinction of lay and clerical. 
But these are not much to be considered in a history of religious 
opinions. 


II. The Article next speaks of those ministers being lawfully 
called and sent, who derive their calling and mission from certain 
persons having public authority in the Church to call and to send. 

It is necessary then to consider, whether there have always 
been certain persons invested with such public authority; who 
such persons were; and who are recognized as such by the English 
Church. 

It is the plain record of all antiquity, that ordination was 
anciently conferred by the highest order of the ministry. This 
will probably be questioned by no one. We have seen that St. 
Clement, the earliest Christian writer except those of the new 
Testament, speaks of the Apostles as having appointed successors 
to themselves in the ministry and government of the Church. We 
have seen that Irenzus speaks of a regular succession from the 
Apostles in the Churches, and that he counts up the succession in 
the Churches of Rome and of Smyrna. A like testimony we have 
brought from Tertullian. The farther we proceed, the clearer the 
evidence becomes, that no ordinations took place, except by those 


1 Calvin, Institut. rv. iii. 10. See Palm- -Remons. Conf: ¢. 22, § 1; Ford, On the Ar- 
er, On the Church, pt. τ. ch. vurt. ticles, Art. XXIII. 
2 See Episcop. Disp. 76, Thes. 4, 6; 


56 ες OF MINISTERING [Arr. ΧΧΙΠ, 


who thus succeeded to the ministry of the Apostles, deriving their 
orders in direct descent from them, 

The only difficulty which seems to occur is this. In the new 
Testament, it is conceded that Bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) and Presbyter 
(πρεσβύτερος) were synonymous and convertible terms. In after- 
ages we find them distinguished ; the title Bishop being tied to the 
first, the title Presbyter to the second order of the ministry. 
Theodoret? and Hilary the deacon ? tell us, that ‘ the same per- 

sons were originally called indiscriminately bishops and presbyters, 
whilst those who are now called bishops, were called Apostles. 
But afterwards, the name Aypostle was appropriated to such only 
as were Apostles indeed, and then the name Bishop was given to 
those who were before called Apostles.” ὃ The question is, Was 
this really the state of the case from the first, or is it the inven- 
tion of a later age? Were there always three orders of ministers? 
or originally but two, the aristocratical by degrees changing into 
a monarchical government? There have been many (such as 
Blondel, Daillé, Lord King, &c.) who have asserted, that there 
were but two orders, presbyters and deacons; that by degrees, 
where there were several presbyters, one was elected to preside 
over the rest; but that he was no more distinct from them, than 
the dean of a cathedral is from the rest of the chapter, or than the 
rector or vicar of a large parish is from the assistant curates and 
ministers of the various chapelries connected with it,— in short a 
ruling or presiding elder, but not a bishop. By degrees, they say, 
these ruling elders arrogated to themselves to be a superior order 
to their brethren, and claimed exclusively that authority to ordain 
and to execute discipline, which had before been vested in the 
whole body of the presbytery. 

It is quite certain, that in the beginning of the third century, 
t. ὁ. one hundred years after the Apostles, there existed in the 
Church the three orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. 
Thenceforward, in every part of the world whither Christianity had 
spread, no Church was to be found where bishops did not preside 
and ordain. They are well-known rules, that ‘ what has been 
religiously observed by the Apostolical Churches, must appear to 
have been handed down from the Apostles themselves.” * And 
that, “‘ what is held by the Universal Church, and not ordained by 
any council, but has always been retained in the Church, is to be 


1 Comm. in 1 Tim. iii. 1. * “ Constabit id esse ab Apostolis trad- 
2 Hilar. Diac. In Ephes. iv. ; itum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum 


8 See Bingham, Ε΄. A. Book 11. ch. 11. fuerit sacrosanctum,” — Tertull. C. Mar- 
1. cion; Lib. 1v. ¢. 5; οὗ De Preseript. ο. 17. 


Sec. 11 IN THE CONGREGATION. 557 


believed to haye come down from Apostolical authority.”1 So 
then the burden of proof must lie with those who contend that a 
custom universally prevailing at a very early period was an imno- 
vation, and not a tradition. | 

Let us, however, see whether the chain of evidence is not com- 
plete even from the Apostles. 

Clemens Romanus, it is true, mentions only bishops and deacons, 
and afterwards presbyters; from which it has been inferred 
that bishops and presbyters were still used indiscriminately for 
the same office, as in the new Testament. Yet his epistle contains 
at least inferential proof of the existence of three orders at the 
time he wrote. In the first place, he himself evidently writes 
with authority, as representing the whole Church in the great city 
of Rome. ‘The Church of God,.which is at Rome, to the 
Church of God which is at Corinth.”? This exactly corresponds 
with what we are told by Irenzus and all subsequent testimonies, 
that Clement was bishop of Rome. ‘Then, in speaking of the min- 
istry as ordained by the Apostles, when they themselves were 
about to depart, and enjoining the laity to be observant of it, he 
specially compares the Christian clergy to the three orders of the 
Levitical priesthood. ‘* The same care must be had of the persons 
that minister unto Him: for the chief priest has his proper ser- 
vices ; and to the priests their proper place is appointed ; and to 
the Levites appertain their proper ministries: and the layman is 
confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen.’ ὃ 
This, be it observed, is exactly the language of later fathers. In 
allusion to this resemblance the presbyters are constantly called 
sacerdotes; the bishop, swmmus sacerdos; the deacons, Levite. 
And it will facilitate our understanding of the whole question, if 
we bear in mind, that, as the high priest was still a priest, and 
only distinguished from the other priests by one or two points of 
official preéminence, so the fathers constantly speak of the bishop 
as still a presbyter (συμπρεσβύτερος, 1 Pet. v. 1), but as distin- 
guished from the other presbyters by the power of ordination and 
jurisdiction. 

If we believe the seven shorter epistles of Ignatius to be genu- 
ine, they abound in passages concerning the three orders of the 
ministry, so plain that no language can be stronger or more signif- 


1 “Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec Adv. Donatist. Lib. rv. c. 24, Tom. 1x. p 
conciliis institutum, sed semper reten- 189. 
tum, non nisi auctoritate apostolica trad- 2 Clem. 1 Ad Cor. ο. 1. 
itum rectissime creditur.”” — Augustin. δ, 40. 


558 OF MINISTERING | (Arr. XXII 


ieant.1 If, on the contrary, we incline to receive the epistles of 
the Syriac version, not as abbreviated, but as the genuine epistles, 
we have already seen, that they contain a passage in which sub- 
jection to the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and especially to 
the bishop, is most earnestly and solemnly enjoined.? 

In the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, we are told that 
the cities and Churches of Asia sent their bishops, presbyters, and 
deacons to meet him.’ 

Hegesippus (ab. A. Ὁ. 158) relates of himself, that, as he was 
travelling to Rome, he communicated with many bishops, and 
especially speaks of having intercourse with Primus, the Bishop 
of Corinth. He also relates the succession of certain bishops 
of Rome. And speaks of Simon, the son of Cleopas, as second 
Bishop of Jerusalem.* Here we find the three great cities, Jeru- 
salem, Rome, and Corinth, in each of which there must have been 
several presbyters, yet still each presided over by a single bishop. 

Treneeus undoubtedly calls the same persons by the name of 
bishops and presbyters ; but we should be misled by the mere in- 
discrimate use of names, if we concluded that therefore there was 
in his day no such thing as a church-officer.superior to the general 
body of presbyters. On the contrary, we have already seen that 
he lays great stress on the power of tracing up the succession of 
ministers in the Churches unbroken to the Apostles ; and this sue- 
cession he traces, not by the whole body of presbyters in each, but 
by the single individuals at the head. Thus, he says, the Apostles 
St. Peter and St. Paul gave the bishopric of Rome to Linus, to him 
succeeded Anacletus, to Anacletus Clemens, to Clemens Evarestus, 
to him Alexander, then Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Ani- 
cetus, Soter, Eleutherius. In the like manner he speaks of a regu- 
lar descent of the heads of the Church of Smyrna from Polycarp. 
Here it is evident, that the regular ordination and succession of 
doctrine in the Church is maintained, not by parity of presbyters, 
but by successive ordination of chief pastors, who in their turn had 
power to ordain others. 

It has been already mentioned, that Clement of Alexandria con- 
siders ‘‘ the degrees (ai zpoxorai) in the Church on earth of bishops, 
presbyters, and deacons, to be imitations of the angelic glory, and 
of that dispensation which is said to await those who live in right- 


. Ad Ephes, 8, 4, 5, 6; 8 M σε ων: Cen τὰς p. 174 
nes. Pa et 18; Tra 2, τῇ Binladaiphe 1, . Ap. it Ἑ v. 22, 
4,7, 10 δὲ Smprn 8,12; Fete ‘olyc, 6. ΝΣ 
Polycarp. c. 6, cited above. ; 


Sec. 1.} IN THE CONGREGATION. 559 


gousness according to the Gospel. These, according to the Apos- 
tle, being raised into the clouds, will first minister (διακονεῖν), then, 
receiving an advancement in glory, be enrolled in the presbytery 
until they come to the perfect man.”! Here it is evident that 
Clement alludes to the existence of three orders in the ministry, 
which might successively be passed through, and which he fancifully 
considers like the progressive degrees of glory hereafter. Else- 
where also he speaks of presbyters, bishops, and deacons, saying 
that there are various precepts or suggestions in the Scriptures 
pertaining to particular persons, ‘‘some for presbyters, some for 
bishops, some for deacons,” ? &e. 

The testimony of Tertullian has already been sufficiently ad- 
duced, when we were on the subject of the distinction of clergy 
and laity. He, more than once, enumerates the three orders? In 
one instance he asserts that presbyters and deacons could not bap- 
tize without the authority of the bishop ;* challenges heretics to 
trace, as the Catholics could, the succession of their bishops to the 
Apostles ;® and complains that among heretics the offices of bish- 
ops, deacons, presbyters, and laics, were all confounded.® 

Origen continually distinguishes between bishops, priests, and 
deacons. Bishop Pearson’ has quoted ten passages from his writ- 
ings, in seven of which the distinction is plainly marked, and the 
three orders are expressly enumerated. 

All these writers lived within a hundred years of the Apostles. 
St. John is said to have died a. Ὁ. 100, and Origen to have been 
born a. Ὁ. 186. From the time of Origen the case admits of no 
question. The first fifty of the canons of the apostles use the 
word bishop thirty-six times, in appropriation to him, that is the 
ruler or president of the church, above the clergy and laity ; twenty- 
four times the bishop is expressly distinguished from the presbyter ; 
and fourteen times indicated as having particular care for govern- 
ment, jurisdiction, censures, and ordinations committed to him.® 
The first canon expressly enjoins, that a bishop be consecrated by 

1 Stromat. v1. p. 798. See also, Bp. ons, which are received as authentic, 
Kaye’s Clem. Alex. p. 468. being quoted by the Council of Nice, 

2 αἱ μὲν πρεσβυτέροις, αἱ δ᾽ ἐπισκόποις " al Constantinople, Ephesus,Chalcedon, An- 


δὲ διακόνοις, x. τ. A. — Pedag. 111. p. 809. tioch, and Carthage. They were un- 
8 De Baptismo, c.17, De Fugdé, ο. 11. doubtedly not apostolical, but are gener- 


* Ibid. c. 17, cited above. ally referred to the middle of the third 
5 De Prescrip. Heeretic. ο. 82. century. Bp. Beveridge thinks they 
6 Thid. ὁ. 41, cited above. were collected by Clement of Alexandria, 


7 Vindicie Ignat. ap. Coteler. Tom. 1i They seem to be appealed to as author- 
pt. τι. p. 320. ity by Tertullian, Cyprian, Constantine 
8 See Bp. Taylor’s Episcopacy Asserted, the Great, Alexander of Alexandria, and 
Sect. xxiv. Athanasius. See Codex Canonum Eccles. 
All this occurs in the first fifty Can- Prim. illus. a Gul. Beveregio. 


560 OF MINISTERING | (Arr. XXIIL 


two or three bishops. The second, that a presbyter or deacon be 
ordamed by one bishop. The thirty-fifth forbids bishops to ordain 
out of their own dioceses. The thirty-seventh decrees synods of 
bishops. The thirty-eighth enjoins bishops to have the superintend- 
ence of all ecclesiastical affairs; and the thirty-ninth forbids pres- 
byters and deacons to do anything without the knowledge of their 
bishop.? 

Having now reached the age of Cyprian, when the existence of 
a regular diocesan episcopacy is not questioned by-the most skepti- 
cal; if we look back on the testimonies above cited, it is surely not 
too much to assert, that for scarcely any of the undoubted events 
of ancient history does there exist anything like the weight of con- 
temporary evidence that we have from the first, that, in the first 
century after the Apostolic age, there was a marked distinction be- 
tween bishops, presbyters, and deacons; or that, if the names of 
bishops and presbyters were not always distinguished, there was 
still clearly a separation between the functions of the ordinary pres- 
byter and those of the president, chief priest, or bishop of the 
Church. There is nothing like such evidence for the existence of 
the laws of Draco, or the usurpation of Pisistratus, of the kingdom 
of Croesus, or the battle of Marathon, for the wars of Carthage, 
or the very being of such persons as Brennus, or Pyrrhus, or Han- 
nibal. 

In the age of Cyprian (7. 6. about a. p. 250), we have abun- 
dant evidence as to the state of the Church. We know, for in- 
stance, that Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, had forty-four presby- 
ters under him;? that Cyprian himself, in like manner, presided 
over a considerable body of presbyters. The latter never hesitates 
to claim supreme authority, under God, over his presbyters and 
deacons ; and complains bitterly, if any of the presbytery give not 
due honour to him as their bishop. The privileges of the presby- 
tery were indeed carefully preserved to them; and we have no 
reason to believe that, at this early period, nearly so great an im- 
parity prevailed, as we afterwards meet with. The dioceses were 
very small compared with their extent in modern times. One 
bishop generally had the care of one large town and its immediate 
suburbs: whence the original name of a diocese was not διοικήσις 


1 Beveregii Synodicon, Tom. 1. ΡΡ. 1, byteris nec Evangelii nec loci sui memo- 
24-27. res, sed neque futurum Domini judicium, 

2 Euseb. vi. 48. neque nunc sibi propositum episcopum 

3 See, for instance, Epistol. xv1. “Quod cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub 
enim non periculum metuere debemus antecessoribus factum est, cum contume- 
de offensa Domini quando aliqui de Pres- lia prepositi totum sibi vendicant *” 


561 


(diocese), but παροικία (parochia), a word not expressing, as of late 
times, a single congregation or parish, but implying the whole 
town and its immediate neighborhood; that is, such a precinct or 
district as a single bishop could govern with the assistance of his 
presbyters. 1 The power of bishops too over their presbyters was, 
in early times, limited in many ways. The Council of Carthage 
(A. D. 848) ordained, that three bishops should judge a deacon, and 
not less than six should censure a presbyter.? Presbyters were 
always looked on as assessors and counsellors to their bishop.’ 
Bishops weighed all things by common advice, and did nothing but 
after deliberation, and with consent of their clergy. Presbyters 
were considered as, pe with the bishops, invested with the dig- 
nity of the priestly office ;5 and in the African Churches and the 
Latin, though not in the East, all the presbyters present assisted 
the bishop in the ordination of a presbyter, by laying their hands 
on his head.® : 

Yet there is no example of ordination ever being intrusted to 
presbyters only. On one occasion, a presbyter of Alexandria, 
named Colluthus, pretended to actasa bishop, but a council of bish- 
ops, assembled at Alexandria under Hosius (a. p. 824), declared 
his ordinations null and void.? 

Those who advocate the parity of bishops and presbyters, ap- 
peal to the language of St Chrysostom and St. Jerome; who 
undoubtedly maintained with great earnestness the dignity of the 
office of presbyter, and esteemed it very little inferior to the epis- 
copate. Yet their very words distinctly show, that in one point, : 
and that the point now in question, the bishop had a power not 
intrusted to the presbyter. St. Chrysostom says, that ‘ bishops 
excel presbyters only in the power of ordination.”*® And St. Je- 
rome asks, ‘‘ what does a bishop which a presbyter does not, except 


Sec. I.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 


1 See Suicer, 8. vy. παροικία; and Cypriano, Epist. xu1x.; Op. Cypr. Epist. 
Bingham, Κ᾿. A. Bk. rx. ο. 2. p. 92. See Bingham, "Bk. ir. ch. XIx. 
2 Concil. Carthag. 1. Can. 11; 860 sect. 8. 


‘Bingham, Bk. 11. ch. 111. sect. 9. 

3 Σύμβουλοι τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, συνέδριον καὶ 
βυυλὴ BL éxxAnoiac. —Constit. Apostol. Lib. 
11, 6. 

* “Quando a primordio episcopatus 
mei statuerim, nihil sine consilio vestro, 
et sine consensu plebis, mea privata sen- 
tentia gerere.”— Cyprian, Hpist. xiv. ; 
Op. Cyp. Epist. p. 38. 

“‘Omniactu ad me perlato placuit con- 
trahi presbyterium, qui et hodie presen- 
tes fuerunt, ut firmato consilio, quid circa 
personam eorum observari deberet, con- 
sensu omnium statueretur.’’— Cornelius 

71 


5 “ Qui cum Episcopo Presbyteri sacer- 
dotali honore conjuncti.”” — Cyprian. Ad 
Lucian. Epist. txt. See Bingham, 11. 
xix. 14. 

6 Jt was so ordained by the fourth 
Council of Carthage, and there is a rule 
to the same purpose in the constitutions 
of the Church of Alexandria. See Bing- 
ham, 11. xix. 10. 

7 Athanas. Opp. τ. p. 732, Colon. See 
Bingham, 11. iii. 6; Palmer, On the 
Church, pt. v1. ch. Iv. 
ra χειροτονίᾳ μόνῃ. --- Hom. 1x. in 1 ad 


ὙΨΌΣ i Ais a . .. οὖἦἦ ΡΥ ΎΉΎΨΎΥΥ  ΥΓΥ ΝΠ ΩΝ ΟΣ ΎΌ 
Ἶ 
> "4 
7} 


562 OF MINISTERING [Arr. X XT. 


ordaining?” 1 It is true that St. Jerome, arguing from the lan- 
guage of St. Paul to Timothy, contends that Episcopus and Pres- 
byter originally designated the same office, and thinks that one was 
afterwards placed above the rest, to avoid schism in the Church. 
This, however, is evidently only his own private inference from 
Scripture. He relates indeed, that at Alexandria, from the time 
of St. Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters used to elect 
one from among themselves, and, having placed him aloft (in er- 
celsiort gradu), saluted him Episcopus ; as if an ‘army should make 
a general (imperator), or a body of deacons an archdeacon.? But 
we cannot infer from this, that St. Jerome means to say that there 
was no distinct consecration of the bishop so elected ; for it is mere- 
ly of the election, not of the ordination of their bishop, that he 
speaks ; and he simply adduces this as an instance of what he be- 
lieved to be one of the ancient forms of episcopacy ; namely, the 
appointment by the presbyters of one from among themselves to 
preside over them.’ 

Hilary the deacon says, that “ the ordination of bishop and 
presbyters is the same, for both are priests ; but the bishop is first ; 
for every bishop is a presbyter, not every presbyter a bishop.” 4 All 
this is true, except inasmuch as he says there is no difference be- 
tween the ordination of a bishop and a presbyter; and this is evi- 
dently the private opinion (deduced from the language of St. Paul) 
of a person not much to be relied on, and who afterwards joined 
the Luciferian schism. What he says in another place,® that ** in 
' Egypt, even to his days, presbyters sealed (consignant), in the ab- 
sence of the bishop,” does not mean that they ordained, but that 
they confirmed ; and, no doubt, in the early ages, presbyters were 
sometimes permitted to confirm, by delegation of the episcopal 
power.® 

The only decided opponent of episcopacy in primitive times was 
Aerius, a presbyter of the Church of Sebaste, in Armenia, of the 
fourth century. He had a quarrel with his bishop, Eustathius, and 
was thence led, among other errors, to declare that bishops and 
presbyters were altogether equal, and that a presbyter could or- 
dain, as well as a bishop. Epiphanius says, he was altogether an 


1 “Quid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, 11. iii. 5; Palmer, On the Church, pt. v1. 
episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat?” — ch. Iv. ; 
pist. ad Evangelium, Ep. 101; Op. Tom, + Jn 1 Tim. iii. in Oper. Ambros. 

Iv. τι. p. 802. & In Ephes. iv. “ Denique apud Aigyp- 
Ξ Tid. tum presbyteri consignant, si prasens 
5 See Bishop Hall, Hpiscopary of Di- non sit episcopus.” 

vine Right, Pt. 11. Sect. 15; Bp. J. Tay- © See Bingham, Bk. x11. ch. 11. sect 

lor, On Episcopacy, Sect. 82; Bingiaas, 2,4; Palmer, pt. vi. ch. ΓΟ v4. 


\ 


3 


IN THE CONGREGATION. 563 


Arian heretic (Apeavds μὲν τὸ πᾶν). His. sentiments were wholly 
rejected by the Catholics, and his sect driven from all quarters of 
the Church ;1 it being a settled doctrine at that day, that the order 
of bishops excelled the order of presbyters, “inasmuch as the 
order of bishops can beget fathers to the Church by ordination, but 
the order of presbyters can but beget sons by baptism.” * 

The review, then, which has been taken of the primitive testi- 
mony, proves this: that, in the earliest ages, in every quarter of 
the world whither the Church had penetrated, whilst all Churches 
had their regular ministers of the two orders of presbyters and 
deacons, yet in every city there was one chief presbyter, presid- 
ing over the clergy of that city and its suburb (wapouxia), and that 
to him was committed the power of ordination, or, in the language 
of the Article, he had “ public authority given him in the Church, 
to call and send ministers into the Lord’s Vineyard.” Whether 
he was to be esteemed of a different order, or of the same order, 
differing only in degree ;* in any case, by universal consent, he 
was the minister of ordination. Other presbyters, equally with 
him, received authority to teach, to baptize, to minister the Eucha- 
rist; but he only had authority to ordain. Such authority was be- 
lieved to have been derived to bishops from the Apostles. And 
the principle on which their ordinations were deemed valid, was, 
not merely that they themselves had the priestly office, but that 
they had received authority (authority by regular episcopal, de- 
scent) to give ordination and mission to others. 

Those who maintain the validity of presbyterian orders, do so 
on the ground that bishops were themselves but presbyters. Those 
who maintain that episcopal ordination is necessary, reply that even 
though bishops be themselves presbyters, yet they only, and not 
all presbyters alike, had the authority to ordain; and therefore 
that without them ordination could not take place. This was the 
constant creed of the fathers, and of the schoolmen after them. 


Sec. 11 


1 Epiphanius, Heres. 75; August, He- tion. Mr. Palmer enumerates as advo- 


ves. 54. 

2 Epiphanius, Ibid. 

3% The fathers, the schoolmen, and di- 
vines, both of the Roman and reformed 
episcopal churches, have seemed doubt- 
ful whether bishops and presbyters were 
of different degrees in the same order, 
or of different orders. The distinction 
between presbyter and deacon has al- 
ways been esteemed as greater than that 
between bishop and presbyter ; the em- 
inence of the bishop over the presbyter 
consisting chiefly in the power of ordina- 


cates for identity of order, but inferiority 
of degree, Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, 
Trenzus, Clemens Alexand., Tertullian, 
Firmilian, Jerome, Hilary the deacon, 
Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Se- 
dulius, Primasius, Isidore Hispalensis, 
Bede, Alcuin, the Synod of Aix, in 819, 
Amalarius, Hugo 5. Victor, Peter Lom- 
bard, Alexander Alensis, Bonaventura, 
Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Sco- 
tus, Cajetan, Durandus, the Council of 
Trent, and many reformers of the 16th 
century. Palmer, pt. rv. ch. 1. 


564 OF MINISTERING 


The Council of Trent, and the later writers in the Church of 
Rome, have not greatly insisted on the three orders, but have gen- 
erally classed together the first and second, bishops and presbyters, 
under the common name of sacerdotes, priests ; influenced herein 
by the high importance which they attached to the priesthood, 
and by the disposition to reserve supreme episcopal authority to 
the pope! Yet they have never thought of permitting any but 
the bishop to administer ordination, which is by them esteemed a 
Sacrament of the Church; but have ever held bishops to be suc- 
cessors of the Apostles, superior to presbyters, and qualified, which 
the other clergy were not, to confirm and to ordain.? 

At the time of the Reformation, the Lutherans, meeting with 
nothing but opposition from the bishops, were constrained to act 
without them. Yet Luther and his followers constantly acted 
under appeal to a general council. The Confession of Augsburg 
fully conceded to bishops the power of the keys, ἡ. 6. of preaching 
the Gospel, of remitting and retaining sins, and of administering 
the Sacraments ; ὃ and declared, that bishops should retain all their 
legitimate authority, if only they would not urge such traditions as 
could not be kept with a good conscience* The Lutherans ear- 
nestly protested, that they much wished to retain episcopacy, but 
that the bishops forced them to reject sound doctrine, and therefore 
they were unable to preserve their allegiance to them; and they 
“ openly testified to the world, that they would willingly continue 
the canonical government, if only the bishops would cease to exer- 
cise cruelty upon the Churches.” ® 

The Calvinists, though in like manner rejecting their bishops, 
who would have bound them to Rome, declared themselves ready 
to submit to a lawful hierarchy. Calvin said that those who 
would not submit themselves to such, were deserving of any ana- 


(Arr. XXIIL 


1 The Council of Trent, Sess. ΧΧΤΙΙ. 
cap. 2, reckons seven orders of ministers, 
sacerdotes, diaconi, subdiaconi, acolythi, 
exorcist, lectores, ostiarii. The Coun- 
cil of Nice itself (Can. 8) had given the 
name of κλῆρος to others besides bishops, 
presbyters, and deacons; and the third 
Council of Carthage made a Ganon (Can. 
23) on purpose to confirm the title to 
them. (Bingham, 1. v. 7.) 

2 Vid. Concil, Trident. Sess. xx111. 


cap. 4. 

, Confess. August. De Potestate Eccle- 
siastica, Sylloge, BY . 161, 225. 

* Ibid. pp. 1 τ 281. 

δ « Episcopi sacerdotes nostros aut co- 
gunt hoc doctrine genus, quod confessi 
sumus, abjicere et damnare, aut nova et 


inaudita crudelitate miseros et innocentes 
occidunt. He cause impediunt quo 
minus agnoscant hos episcopos nostri 
sacerdotes. Ita sxvitia episcoporum in 
causa est, quare alicubi dissolvitur illa 
canonica politia, quam nos magnopere 
cupiebamus conservare. Ipsi viderint 
quomodo rationem Deo reddituri sint, 
quod dissipant ecclesiam, Porro hic ite- 
rum volumus testatum, nos libenter con- 
servaturos esse ecclesiasticam et canoni- 
cam politiam, si modo episcopi desinant 
in nostras ecclesias smvire,”’ — A ia 
Confessionis, Art. vit. ὃ 24. See Rg 
Hall’s Lpiscopacy, Int. Sect. 3. 

above Passage is given at greater length 
in Dr. Wordsworth’s Theophilus Anglica- 


nus, ch. X1. 
\ 


IN THE CONGREGATION. 


8εο. 1.7 566 


thema.! Even Beza thought it insane to reject all episcopacy ; and 
wished that the Church of England might continue to enjoy for- 
ever that singular bounty of God.? 

John Knox himself was not a favourer of that parity of ministers 
which Andrew Melvill afterwards introduced into the Kirk of Scot- 
land, but may be considered as, more or less, a witness for the dis- 
tinction of bishops and presbyters.? 

In the English Church, the primitive rule of episcopal ordination 
and apostolical descent has never been infringed. The Article 
under consideration is the only authorized formulary, which seems 
in the least degree ambiguous. The ambiguity, however, is not 
real but apparent only ; as it is clearly stated that not all who are 
themselves ministers can ordain; but only those invested with 
public authority in the Church to send others into the Vineyard. 
This is a complete description of a bishop, who is a chief presbyter 
invested, over and above other presbyters, with the power of send- 
ing labourers into the Vineyard. 

The first germ of this Article we have already seen, in the Arti- 
cles agreed on between the Lutheran and Anglican divines, a. D. 
1538.4 About the same year, or soon after, a paper was written 
by Cranmer, De Ordine et Ministerio Sacerdotum et Episcoporum, 
in which the divine authority of priests and bishops, the superiority 
of bishops, and their succession from the Apostles, are strongly 
maintained.? The same kind of language is used in the Institution 
of a Christian Man, set forth nearly at the same time, or somewhat 
earlier.6 In the year 1540, Henry VIIIth, in regard of a more 
exact review of the Institution of a Christian Man, appointed sev- 
eral learned men to deliberate about sundry points of religion, and 
to give in their sentiments distinctly. Seventeen questions were 
proposed to them concerning the Sacraments and ordination.? All 
agreed, except one, that bishops had the authority to make presby- 
ters ; and almost all agreed, that none besides had this power. Their 
general opinion was, that a bishop further required consecration, 
though Cox thought institution with imposition of hands sufficient. 


1 «'Talem nobis hierarchiam si exhib- 
eant in qua sic emineant episcopi, ut 
Christo subesse non recusent, ut ab ΠΙῸ 
tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant et ad 
Ipsum referantur:.. . tum vero nullo 
non anathemate dignos fatear, si qui 
erunt, qui non eam reverentur, summa- 

ue obedientia observant.’’ — Calvin. De 

ecessitate Reform. Eccles. See also In- 
stitut. tv. c. 10. See Hall, as above. 

2“ Fruatur sane ista singulari Dei 


beneficentia, que utinam illi sit perpet- 
ua.” — Beza ad Sarav. apud Hall, Episco- 
pacy, Sect. 4. 

8 Harington’s Notes on the Church of 
Scotland. ch. 111. 

+ fig mropei Works, by Jenkyns, tv. 


p. ; 
. _ p- 800. f 
ormularies of Faith in the Reign o, 
Henry VIII. p. ἧι. “ 
7 Strype’s Cranmer, p. 110. 


566 OF MINISTERING (Arr. XXL 


But at this time Cranmer appears to have been much wavering on 
the subject of ordination. He had imbibed a very high notion of 
the Divine prerogative of Christian princes ; and some of his an- 
swers indicate a belief, that Christian kings, as well as bishops, had 
power to ordain ministers. Still he adds, as if doubtful of the sound- 
ness of his position, ‘“* This is mine opinion and sentence at this 
present, which nevertheless I do not temerariously define, but refer 
the judgment thereof wholly to your majesty.””! Several of the 
other divines had afterwards a hand in drawing up the Liturgy and 
the Ordinal; and all had expressed opinions diametrically opposite to 
the Archbishop. But the Archbishop’s own appears to have been 
only a theory hastily taken up, and as speedily relinquished, at a 
period when all opinions were undergoing a great revolution, and 
when the reformers were generally inclined to overrate the regal, 
and underrate the episcopal authority ; since kings in most parts of 
Europe fostered, and bishops checked the progress of the Reforma- 
tion. It is to be observed that the Wecessary Doctrine, which was 
the result of this review of the Institution of a Christian Man, con- 
tains the strongest language concerning “order,” as “the gift or 
grace of ministration in Christ’s Church, given of God to Christian 
men by the consecration and imposition of the bishop’s hands,” and 
concerning a continual succession even to the end of the world? 
This was set forth a. p. 1543. In 1548, Cranmer himself put out 
what is called Cranmer’s Catechism, which, though not written by 
him, was translated and published by his authority. In this the 
Apostolical descent, Episcopal ordination, and the power of the 
Keys, are strongly enforced and greatly enlarged upon.® Bishop 
Burnet remarks on it, that “ it.is plain that Cranmer had now quite 
laid aside those singular opinions which he formerly held of the 
ecclesiastical functions ;. for now, in a work which was wholly his 
own, without the concurrence of any other, he fully sets forth their 
divine institution.” * In 1549, Cranmer and twelve other divines 
drew up the Ordinal, where it is declared that, “from the Apos- 
tles’ times, there hath been three orders of Ministers in Christ’s 
Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;”’ it is said that none were 
admitted to them but ‘ by public prayer, with imposition of hands ; ” 
and it is enjoined that hereafter all persons to be ordained shall be 
1 See Jenkyns’s Cranmer, τι. p. 98, 3. See at length Formularies of Faith, 
where Cranmer’s answers are given. p. 277. : 
All the replies are to be found in the Ap- — * See Cranmer’s Catechism, p. 198, &c. 
ndix to Burnet On the Reformation, and Oxford, 1829. . 
ollier’s Ecclesiastical History. See also * Burnet, History of Reformation, τι 


Jenkyns’s preface to his edition of Oran- pt. 2. 
mer, 1. ἢ. xxxii. &. i 


Suc. ΠῚ IN THE CONGREGATION. 567 


admitted according to the form !aid down in the Ordinal, wich is 
nearly the same as that still used in the Church of England. In 
1552, the Reformatio Legum was published, the chief writer of 
which was the Archbishop. In this again the three orders, of 
bishop, presbyter, and deacon, are distinctly treated of. For bishops 
are claimed the powers of jurisdiction and ordination, and all three 
orders are spoken of as evidently holding their offices on Scriptural 
authority and by Divine appointment.!. Cranmer therefore could 
only have entertained for a short time the peculiar opinions which 
in 1540 he unhappily expressed.?_ It is only necessary to add, hat 
the Ordinal is expressly sanctioned and authorized, not only as part 
of the Book of Common Prayer, but by the XXX VIth Article ; 8 
and we may observe, that, not only is episcopal ordination enjoined 
by it, but in its present form it forbids that any shall hereafter be 
«ὁ accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in the 
United Church of England or Ireland, or suffered to execute any 
of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and 
admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or 
hath had formerly episcopal consecration or ordination.” 4 





βροτὸν II. SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


WE may proceed, as in the last section, to show that, — 

I. There is a regular order of ministers in the Christian 
Church set apart for sacred offices, and that no one may assume 
their functions, except he be lawfully called and sent. 


1 Reform. Leg. Tit. De Ecclesia et menthas been clearly disproved by Chan- 


Ministris Ejus, capp. 8, 4, 10-12. 

2 The question concerning Archbishop 
Cranmer’s remarkable expressions in 
1540, and subsequent change of opinion, 
is ably disposed of by Chancellor Har- 
ington, Succession of Bishops in the Church 
of England. See also his Two Ordination 
Sermons. Exeter, 1846. 


8 The Church of England has always 


acted on the principles laid down in the 
Preface to the Ordinal, although many of 
her writers have shown consideration for 
the difficulties of the Continental Prot- 
estants. It has been asserted by Mr. 
Macaulay, Hist. of England, 1. p. 75, 
that “in the year 1603 the province 
of Canterbury ”’ (7. ὁ. in Canon 55) “ sol- 
emnly recognized the Church of Scotland, 
a Church in which episcopal ordination 
was unknown, as a branch of the holy 
Catholic Church of Christ.” This state- 


cellor Harington, who has demonstrated 
that at least a titular episcopacy then ex- 
isted in Scotland, and that there was 
“a full determination to restore a regu- 
larly consecrated episcopacy.” See a 
Letter on the L.Vth Canon and the Kirk of 
Scotland, by E. C. Harington, M. A, 
Rivingtons, 1851. 

* The following writers may be con- 
sulted by the student, both as containing 
the arguments for episcopacy and the 
succession of ministers, and as showing 
the judgment of the great Anglican di- 
vines on the subject. Hooker, Bk. vit. ; 
Hall, Episcopacy of Divine Right ; Taylor, 
On Episcopacy ; Chillingworth, Divine 
Institution of Episcopacy; Leslie, On the 
Qualifications to administer the Sacraments; 
Potter, On Church Government ; Bingham, 
E. A. Bk. 11.; Palmer, On the Church, 
Part vi. 


568 OF MINISTERING (Arr. XXII 


II. There are regular ministers of ordination, to whom public 
authority is given to send labourers into the Vineyard. 


I. The example of the old Testament priesthood is clearly to the 
point. One out of the twelve tribes was set apart for sacred offices 
in general, and of that tribe one whole family for special priestly 
ministration. 

It is said truly, that the priesthood, and especially the high priest- 
hood, was typical of Christ. He is the great High Priest over the 
House of God. Therefore, it is argued, all other priesthood has 
ceased. It is however equally true, that the kings and prophets 
of old were as much types of Christ as were the high priests. 
Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King. Yet still it is lawful that 
there should be kings and prophets under the Gospel, for we read 
of many prophets in the Church (Acts ii. 17; xi. 27; xiii. 1; xv. 
82; xxi. 9, 10. 1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. iv. 11); and we are spe- 
cially enjoined to “‘ honour the king” (1 Pet. ii. 17). 

In one sense, doubtless, there are no such prophets, kings, or 
priests now, as there were under the Law. Kings were then rul- 
ers of the theocracy, vicegerents of God in governing the Church 
of God. Prophets were sent to prepare the way of Him who was 
to come. Priests offered up daily sacrifice of propitiation, in type 
of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. So, 
in such a sense, are there now neither prophets, priests, nor kings. 
But as the coming of the King and Prophet has not abolished the 
kingly or prophetic office, so the coming of the Great High Priest 
has not of necessity done away with all priestly functions in the 
Church, but only with such as of their own nature belonged to the 
typical and ceremonial dispensation. Nay! we may fairly argue, 
that as sacred things in the old Testament needed the ministry 
of consecrated officers, so the still more sacred things of the new 
Testament would be likely to need the attendance of those. specially 
set apart. And, without controversy, the Gospel and the Sacra- 
ments are greater and more sacred than the Law and the sacri- 
fices ; and hence, ‘if the ministration of death . . . . was glorious,” 
we could easily imagine, that the ‘ ministration of the Spirit would 
be rather glorious ;”’ that “if the ministration of condemnation 
was glory, much more would the ministration of righteousness ex- 
ceed in glory” (2 Cor. iii. 7, 8,9). In the old Testament the 
priests were appointed, first to minister in the sacrifices, and then 
to teach the people (Lev. x. 11. Deut. xxxiii. 10. Hagg. ii. 11. 
Mal. ii. 7). We still need the ministration, not of sacrifices, but 


Sxc. II.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 569 


of Sacraments; and the instruction of the Church is at least as 
necessary as the instruction of the Jews. 

It is said, however, that all Christians are priests, and that a 
distinct ministry is therefore needless and inconsistent (see 1 Pet. 
ii. 9; Rev. i. 6; v.10). But it is to be observed, that wherever 
Christians are said to be priests, they are also said to be kings. We 
know that the kingly character, which Christ bestows on His peo- 
ple, has not abolished monarchy; why should their priestly char- 
acter have abolished ministry? Besides which, the very passages 
in the new Testament in which Christians are called a “ royal 
priesthood,” ‘* kings and priests,” are absolute quotations from the 
old Testament, where the very same titles are given to all the peo- 
ple of the Jews. “Ye shall be unto mea kingdom of priests, a 
holy nation” (Exod. xix. 6). The Septuagint Version of Exodus 
and the Greek of St. Peter are almost the same. The one did not 
forbid a special priesthood in Israel; the other therefore cannot 
disprove a ministry in the Church. It was indeed argued on one 
occasion, that the sanctity of the whole congregation made it use- 
less to have priests at all.1 But how far the argument was safe 
the sequel showed, when the earth swallowed up Korah and his 
company, and fourteen thousand of the people died of the plague, 
because they had listened to his reasoning (Num. xvi. 32, 33, 45- 
49). It is difficult to see, where the difference lies between this 
statement of Korah and the modern denial of a Christian ministry, 
on the ground that all the Christian Church is a holy and spiritual 
priesthood ; and it is difficult to understand what can be, if this 
be not, the ““ gainsaying of Core,”’ so strongly rebuked by St, Jude 
(ver. 11). 

Now it was foretold by Isaiah (Ixvi. 21) that, when the Gentiles 
were brought in, that is in the days of the Church of Christ, some 
among them should be taken “for priests and for Levites.” This 
looks much like a prophecy of a ministry to be established under 
the Gospel, with some analogy to that under the Law. Accord- 
ingly, our blessed Lord, even during His own personal ministry, 
whilst the Great High Priest was bodily ministering on earth, ap- 
pointed two distinct orders of ministers under Himself, first, Apos- 
tles (Matt. x. 1), secondly, the seventy disciples (Luke x. 1); and 
this with evident reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, and the 
seventy elders among the Jews. He gave them power to preach 


1 Numb. xvi. 3: “ Ye take too much Lorp is among them; wherefore then 
upon you, seeing all the congregation - lift ye up yourselves above the congre- 
are holy, every one of them, and the gation of the Lorp?” 

72 , 


570 OF MINISTERING ~ (Arr. XXII. 


the Gospel (Matt. x. 7. Luke x. 9), to bless those that received 
them (Matt. x. 12,13. Luke x. 5, 6), to denounce God’s judg- 
ments on those that rejected them (Matt. x. 14. Luke x. 10, 11). 
He assured them, that he that received them received Him, that 
he that despised them despised Him (Matt. x. 40. Luke x. 16). 
And He further endued them with miraculous powers, because of 
the peculiar exigencies of their ministration. Moreover, He prom- 
ised to give them the keys of the kingdom, that they might bind 
and loose ; ἡ, 6. excommunicate offenders and absalve the penitent 
(Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18). All this was whilst He Himself went 
in and out among them, as the chief minister of His own Church. 
When He was about to suffer, He instituted one of the Sacraments 
of His Church, and gave especial authority to the Apostles to min- 
ister it (Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25 ; compare 1 Cor. x. 16); 
it being apparent from the statement of St. John, that they had 
before received authority, not only to preach, but to baptize (John 
iv. 2). At last, when He had risen from the dead, He gave fuller 
commission to those who were now to be the chief ministers in 
his kingdom, to go forth with His authority to preach and to bap- 
tize (Matt. xxviii. 19). He said unto them,.** Peace be unto you: 
as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And He breath- 
ed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 1 
whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and 
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John xx. 21, 22, 
23). He enjoined them to feed His sheep (John xxi. 15, 17). 
Lastly, He promised to be “ with them alway, even to the end of 
the world” (Matt. xxviii. 20). Then He left the Church, thus 
organized with Apostles and elders; and ten days afterwards 
sent down the miraculous, enlightening gifts of the Spirit, the 
more fully to qualify His chosen ministers for the work which lay 
upon them. Accordingly, the Apostle says, “" When He ascended 
up on high, He gave gifts unto men,. ... He gave some (as) 
Apostles, and some (as) prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, 
pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work 
of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ’? (Eph. iv. 
8, 11, 12, &.). 

The ministry so constituted continued to work. The college 
of Apostles was perfected by the addition of Matthias (Acts. i. 

1 “ The Holy Ghost,” for the work of was it the miraculous baptism of the 
the ministry, the ordaining influences of Church with the Holy Ghost, which did 
the Spirit.” It could not have been the not come upon them till the day of Pen- 


ordinary operations of the Spirit, for they tecost, Acts ii. 1. 
had been long living under them; nor 


Sec. Π.1 IN THE CONGREGATION. 571 


26). The Apostles preached, baptized, broke bread, (ὦ. 6. minis- 
tered the Holy Communion,) and governed the Church. After- 
wards, believers multiplying, and the Apostles and elders not hay- 
ing leisure to attend to the secular affairs of the Church, they ordain- 
ed the third order of deacons, whose ordination was performed by 
laying on of hands; and so they also were then empowered to 
preach and to baptize (Acts viii. 5, 12, 18, 38,), though not to per- 
form some functions peculiar to the Apostles (Acts viii. 15-17). 

Thenceforward we find baptism, breaking of bread, and preach- 
ing, ever performed by regular ministers, Apostles, elders, deacons. 
The Apostles, as they go on their missionary journeys, “ ordain 
them elders in every Church” (Acts xiv. 23). The “elders” 
meet with the Apostles in solemn council about the affairs of the 
Church (Acts xv. 2). When St. Paul takes leave of the Churches, 
he sends to the ““ elders’ and addresses them with the exhortation, 
‘Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God 
which He hath purchased with His own Blood”’ (Acts xx. 17, 28). 
We find from the inscriptions of the Epistles, that the settled 
Churches had “ bishops and deacons” (Phil. i. 1). St. Peter ex- 
horts the ** elders” of the Church to “ feed the flock of God ” (1 Pet. 
v. 1, 2). St. James bids the sick to send for the “ elders of the 
Church to pray over them” (James v.14). St. Paul speaks of him- 
self and other Christian pastors, as “‘ ministers of Christ, and stew- 
ards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. iv. 1). Heexhorts Archippus 
to take heed to the ministry, which he had received of the Lord, 
to fulfil it (Col. iv. 17). Especially, we find in his Epistles to 
Timothy and Titus, that towards the end of his own, Apostleship 
he appointed others, who had previously received the gift of God 
by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. iv.14. 2 Tim. i. 6), that they 
might, as the Apostles had hitherto done, *‘ ordain elders in every 
city” (Tit. i. 5. 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 21, 22, ἅς.) Directions are given 
for proving, examining, and commissioning elders, presbyters or 
bishops, and deacons, which was to be done by the laying on of 
the hands of those chief ministers, themselves thus apostolically 
sent. (See 1 Tim. iii. 1-13; v. 21, 22. Tit. i. 5-7, ὥς.) The 
elders so ordained were esteemed worthy of double honour, espe- 
cially if they ruled well and laboured in the word and doctrine 
(1 Tim. v. 17). And the Church is exhorted to obey those who 
had thus “the rule over them, and who watched for their souls, 
as they that must give account” (Heb. xiii. 17). Thus we find, 
_ that a regular ministry was established, ordained after a set form, 


572 OF MINISTERING (Arr. XXTIL 


by laying on of the hands of Apostles or other chief ministers em- 
powered by them ; that they preached and administered the Sac- 
raments; that they were called ministers and stewards of God’s 
mysteries ; that they were urged faithfully to fulfil their ministry, 
and that the people were urged to attend to them and respect 
them. ‘Those who sent them forth were exhorted to be careful 
and circumspect how they ordained them. 

Now, all this proves, that this public office not only existed, but 
was not to be undertaken except by persons lawfully called and 
sent. St. Paul reasons, that the Jewish priesthood could not be 
undertaken except by him “ that is called of God, as was Aaron ” 
(Heb. v. 4). He even adds, that “ Christ also glorified not Him- 
self to be made an High Priest” (ver. 5). But the Gospel min- 
istry was more glorious than that of the Law; “ for if the ministra- 
tion of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of 
righteousness exceed in glory ” (2 Cor. iii. 9). Hence we reason- 
ably should conclude, that it too could not be self-assumed. And 
we find accordingly, that the Apostles ask, “" How shall they preach 
except they be sent?” (Rom. x. 15) ; that they highly estimate the 
importance and difficulty of the office, saying, ‘* Who is sufficient 
for these things ?”” (2 Cor. ii. 16) ; that they dissuade people from 
rashly seeking to intrude into it (James iii. 1); and that, so far 
from considering all Christians as equally ministers of Christ, they 
ask, “* Are all Apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers ?”’ (1 Cor. 
xii. 29). On the contrary, they plainly teach us, that the Church 
is a body, in which God ordains different stations for different mem- 
bers, some to be eyes, others ears, some hands, others feet; all 
necessary, all to be honoured, but some in more honourable place 
than the rest. 


II. The new Testament contains evidence, that, besides the 
ordinary ministers, namely, presbyters and deacons, there were 
always certain chief presbyters who were ministers of ordination, 
having authority to send labourers into the Vineyard. 

Under the Law, besides the ordinary priests and Levites, there 
was always the high priest, and therefore three orders or degrees 
of ministry. When our blessed Lord Himself was upon earth, He 
ordained two orders of ministers under Himself, the Apostles and 
the seventy disciples. Here again was a threefold cord, Christ an- 
swering to the high priest, the Apostles to the priests, the seventy 
to the Levites. But our Lord was to depart from them ; and for 
the future government of His Church we find a promise, that “in 


IN THE CONGREGATION. 5738 


the regeneration ” (ὦ. 6. in the new state of things under the Gospel 
of Christ, the renovation of the Church) the twelve Apostles should 
“sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” 
(Matt. xix. 28). ‘ What are the twelve tribes of Israel, but the 
whole Church of God? For whereof did the first Christian 
Church consist, but of converted Jews? And whither did our 
Saviour bend all His allusions, but to them? They had their 
twelve princes of the tribes of their fathers (Numb. i. 16). They 
had their seventy elders, to bear the burden of the people (Numb. 
xi. 16,17). The Son of God affects to imitate His former polity, 
and therefore chooses His twelve and seventy disciples to sway His 
evangelical Church.} 

Thus, when the Saviour in body departed from them, He left 
behind Him twelve Apostles to sit on the thrones or seats of gov- 
ernment in the Church, and under them seventy elders to act 
with them, as their fellow-labourers and assessors. (See Acts xv. 
22, ἄς.) -Soon after the ascension, the Apostles were moved to 
appoint a third order, the order of deacons. And thus once more 
the number was complete, resembling the number of the Aaronic 
ministry, and embracing, 1, Apostles ; 2, elders ; 3, deacons. The 
former two were appointed and ordained -by the Lord, the third 
was from the Apostles.” 

Whilst the Lord Jesus was present with them, He alone or- 
dained. (See Matt. x. Luke x. John xx. &.). After His as- 
. cension (except in the cases of St. Matthias and St. Paul, who were 
constituted to the Apostleship by Christ Himself) the Apostles 
acted as the ministers of ordination. (See Acts vi. 8, 6; xiv. 28. 
2 Tim.i. 6. Tit. i. 5). Under them, we find continual mention 
of two orders of ministers, presbyters or elders, (who are also called 
bishops,) and deacons. (Acts xx. 17. Phil. 1. 1, &c.). The 
Apostles in all things undertook the government of, and authority 
over the Churches, giving directions to the inferior ministers, and 


Sxc. 11.} 


! Bishop Hall’s Episcopacy, Sect. 2. 

2 [The statements of this paragraph 
must, I think, be taken with some modi- 
fication. There is no evidence in the 
New Testament that the seventy of the 
Gospels became, ipso facto, the presbyters 
or elders of the Apostolic Church. That 
these elders may have been selected from 
that body, is highly probable. There is 
patristic authority to prove it. But the 


same authority asserts that the seven: 


deacons were also selected from the 
seventy; a thing which would be inex- 
plicable, had the seventy been made 
presbyters by our Lord. (See the pas- 


sages cited in Archbishop Potter On 
Church Government, p. 48, Am. ed.) 

What is certain is, that Paul and Bar- 
nabas “ordained them elders in every 
Church ” which they founded in their 
first missionary journey (Acts xiv. 28) ; 
following, herein the example of the 
mother Church of Jerusalem (Acts xi. 
80), and furnishing a pattern for all 
Churches. The institution of the order 
is not recorded, as that of deacons is. 
Its existence, however, is certain, and so 
the a Willa remains untouched. 


574 OF MINISTERING (Arr. XXL 


superintending them. (See Acts xv.; xix. 1-5; xx. 17-85. 
1 Cor. iv. 16-21; v. 3-5. 2 Cor. ii. 9, 10; x. 1-14; xii. 20, 
21, ἄς.) It is very true that the Apostles speak, when address- 
ing the elders, with brotherly kindness, calling themselves fel- 
low-elders (συμπρεσβύτεροι, 1 Pet. v. 1); but no one can question 
their own superiority to them; and when they are mentioned to- 
gether, they are distinguished as ‘the Apostles and elders,” —a 
yhrase occurring three times in Acts xv. But the time was to 
come, when the Apostles should be taken from: the Church, as 
their Lord had left it before. Did they then make provision for its 
government after their departure, and for a succession to them- 
selves, as ministers of ordination? The Epistles to Timothy and 
Titus plainly answer this question. Timothy and Titus had them- 
selves been presbyters, ordained by (2 Tim. i. 6), and companions 
of St. Paul. Towards the end of his own ministry, and when his 
own apostolical cares had largely increased, he appointed them to 
take the oversight of two large districts, the one of Ephesus (where 
we know there were several elders or presbyters, Acts xx. 17), 
the other of Crete, famous for its hundred cities. In these respec- 
tive districts, he authorized them to execute full apostolical author- 
ity, the same kind of authority which he himself had exercised in 
his own larger sphere of labour. They were to regulate the pub- 
lic services of the Church (1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, &c.),— to ordain pres- 
byters and deacons by the laying on their hands (1 Tim. iii. 1- 
14; v. 22. Tit. i. 5), — to provide that sound doctrine should be 
taught (1 Tim. i. 3; iii. 15; iv. 6,16. 2 Tim. i. 18; ii. 14. Tit. 
i. 13), — committing carefully to faithful men the office of teaching, 
which they had themselves received from the Apostles (2 Tim. ii. 
2), — to execute discipline, honouring the diligent (1 Tim. v. 17), 
— hearing complaints and judging those complained of (1 Tim. v. 
19, 20,21, 24), —admonishing'those that erred (Tit. i. 13), but 
excommunicating those that were heretical (Tit. iii. 10). All this 
power is committed to them, as a solemn charge, to be accounted 
for before God, and as a commandment to be kept without spot, 
unrebukable, to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. i. 
18; v. 21; vi. 18. 2 Tim. iv. 1); and grace for this ministry is 
specially said to have been given them by the putting on of the 
hands of the Apostles (2 Tim. i. 6). 

Now, here is the case of two persons placed in a position pre- 
viously occupied by none but the Apostles, with special power of 
jurisdiction and ordination. Before this, we find no such powers in 
any but the Apostles. Now we find them committed to Timothy 


Β8κο. ΠῚ IN THE CONGREGATION. - 575. 


and Titus. Is it not plain that, as our Lord left the Apostles with 
chief authority over His Church, having elders and deacons under 
them, so now the Apostles, themselves about to depart, leave Tim- 
othy and Titus, and others like them, with the same authority 
which they themselves had received from Christ ? 

It is only necessary, in order to complete the chain of evidence, 
that we observe what we meet with in the Revelation of St. John. 
There, seven great Churches are written to; one of which is the ᾿ 
Church of Ephesus, of which we.know that there were many elders 
there, and that afterwards Timothy was appointed as chief minis- 
ter over them all. Each of these Churches is addressed through 
one presiding minister, who is called Angel, a name of the same 
import as Apostle. And these angels are compared to stars, placed 
to give light to the Churches (Rev. i. 20). Can we doubt then, 
that there was in each of these Churches one person, whose minis- 
try was superior to the rest, as Timothy’s had been to that of the 
presbyters and deacons under him ? 

The evidence therefore of the new Testament seems clear and 
uniform, that there ever existed three orders of ministers: First, 
(1) Our Lord, (2) the Apostles, (3) the seventy. Secondly, (1) 
the Apostles, (2) the elders, (3) the deacons. Thirdly, (1) Per- 
sons like Timothy and Titus, called angels by St. John, (2) the 
elders, presbyters, or bishops, (3) the deacons. Moreover we 
find that, in all these cases, ordinations were performed by the 
first order of these ministers, by the laying on of hands; except 
where our Lord Himself ordained, when He did not lay on His 
hands, but breathed on His disciples (John xx. 22). 

The only arguments of any weight, which are urged against the 
above, appear to be the following : 

1. Bishops and presbyters are in Scripture convertible terms, 
which shows that their subsequent distinction was an invention of 
the priesthood. 

The answer to this has been already given in the words of The- 
odoret. The second order of ministers, whose general and proper 
designation was elders or presbyters, are in a few instances called 
by St. Paul Zpiscopi, bishops, or overlookers. The first order 
were called Apostles, and, by St. John, Angels. There are obvi- 
ous reasons why these two latter names should have been after- 
wards considered too venerable to be given to ordinary ministers ; 
and hence the name bishop, originally used to designate the oyver- 
lookers of a flock, was afterwards appropriated to those who were 
overlookers of the pastors. But the bishops of after-times “ never 


. 616 : OF MINISTERING. [Arr. XXII. 


thought themselves and their order to succeed the Scripture, Ἐπέ 
σκοποι, but the Scripture ᾿Απόστολοι. They were διάδοχοι τῶν ᾿Απο- 
στόλων, the successors of the Apostles.” } 

2. A second argument is, that, in Acts xiii. 1-3, Barnabas 
and Saul are said to have been ordained by some who were not 
Apostles. 

This was no ordination, but merely a setting apart for a special 
labour ; which was done, according to the pious custom of early 
days, with fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands. (Comp. Acts 
xiv. 23.) That it was no ordination, appears from the fact, that 
St. Paul was made an Apostle by our Lord, at the very time of 
his conversion. See Acts xxvi. 17, where our Lord constitutes 
him an Apostle to the Gentiles. The words are, εἰς ots viv σε ἀπο- 
στέλλω. And St. Paul himself always declares, that he had his 
ministry, ‘not gf men, neither dy man, but by Jesus Christ and 
God the Father ” (Gal. i. 1). 

8. Itis said again, Timothy was ordained “ with the laying on 
of the hands of the presbytery” (1 Tim. iv. 14). 

It is certain, however, that bishops and presbyters are not so dif- 
ferent, but that a bishop is still a presbyter, though all presbyters 
are not bishops. So Apostles were still presbyters, (1 Pet. v. 1); 
though all presbyters were not Apostles. Hence, the presbytery 
may have in this case consisted only of those of the first order, 
At all events, St. Paul took part in Timothy’s ordination, for, in 2 
Tim. i. 6, he speaks of the grace of ordination as given to Timothy, 
“by the putting on of his (St. Paul’s) hands.” Hence, Timothy 
was certainly not ordained by presbyters only, without the presence, 
and laying on of hands of an Apostle. It may have been thus early 
permitted to presbyters to join with Apostles in laying on of their 
hands at the ordinations of other presbyters, as it has since been in 
the Western Church; but this at least gives no sanction to mere 
presbyterian ordination. 

We must conclude then with Hooker, “If suything 3 in the 
Church’s government, surely the first institution of bishops was from 
Heaven, even of God.’’? And with Bp. Hall, ““ What inevita- 
ble necessity may do, we now dispute not,” yet ‘for the main sub- 
stance,” episcopacy “is utterly indispensable, and must so continue 
to the world's end,”’ 8 


1 Bentley, On Freethinki 136, quot- ay Bp. Hall’s Episcopacy, Pt. τι. Sect 
ed b Wordsworth, Thegnh Pano ὧν ee 
ooker, vii. v. 10. 


ARTICLE XXIV. 


ao 


Of speaking in the Congreyation in such a De loquendo in Ecclesia lingua quam popu- 
f tongue as the people understandeth. los intelligit. 


Ir is a thing plainly repugnant to the Lineva populo non intellecta, publicas 
Word of God, and the custom of the in Ecclesia preces peragere, aut Sacra- 
Primitive Church to have Publick Prayer menta administrare, Verbo Dei, et primi- 
in the Church, or to minister the Sacra- tive Ecclesis consuetudini plane repug- 
ments in a tongue not understanded of nat. 
the people. 





Section I.— HISTORY. 


Nien Article itself appeals to the custom of the primitive Church. 

The testimony of the fathers we must naturally expect to find 
only incidentally ; for, unless the custom of praying in a strange 
tongue had prevailed in early times, the idea would probably never 
have occurred to them, and so they would not be likely to say 
anything against it. There are however several important proofs 
to be found, that such a custom did not prevail, but that prayers 
were offered up in the churches in the vernacular tongue. 

Greek, Latin, and Syriac were languages spoken by the great 
bulk of the nations first converted to Christianity ; and therefore 
the earliest liturgies and translations of the Scriptures were sure to 
be in these tongues. But moreover, the Egyptians, Ethiopians or 
Abyssinians, Muscovites, Armenians and others, had liturgies in 
the vernacular.! 

The sacred Scriptures were early rendered into the tongues of 
the nations which had been converted to the faith. Even before 
the coming of Christ, we know that the Scriptures were translated 
into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews, and into Chaldee for the 
Jews of Palestine, to whom their original Hebrew had become 
obsolete. Under the Gospel the Syriac translation of the new 
Testament is by many ascribed to the age of the Apostles; at all 
events, it is a very early work. Latin versions were scarcely, if 

1 See Usher, Historia Dogmatica de sect. v., where he proves this from the 


Seripturis et Sacris Vernaculis, cap. vi11. confession of eminent Romanist divines. 
73 


578 OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION [Arr. XXIV. 


at all, posterior to the Syriac. ‘Thus the numerous tribes which 
spoke Greek, Latin, or Syriac, had from the beginning the Serip- 
tures, as well as the common Prayer of the Church, in languages 
understood by them. Moreover, there were very early versions 
into the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, Gothic, 
Sclavonic, and Anglo-Saxon; a fact too well known to require 
proof.! 

Again, we have evidence from the writings of the fathers, that 
the custom of the primitive Christians was, that the whole con- 
gregation should join in the responses and in the singing of psalms 
and hymns; a custom which proves that both the psalms and the 
liturgies must have been in intelligible dialects? For instance, St. 
Cyril writes, “" When the priest says, * Lift up your hearts,” the 
people answer, “ We lift them up unto the Lord;” then the priest 
says, ‘‘ Let us give thanks unto the Lord,” and the people say, 
“Tt is meet and right.” ® St. Chrysostom says, that “" Though all 
utter the response, yet the voice is wafted as from one mouth.” 4 
And St. Hilary speaks of people standing without the Church, 
and yet able to hear the voice of the congregation within, offering 
up prayer and praise.6 So the emperor Justinian in one of his 
laws especially enjoins bishops and presbyters, in public prayers 
and Sacraments, to speak, not secretly, but with such a voice as 
may be well heard by the people.® 

But, beyond all this, we have plain testimonies of the fathers, 
that both the Scriptures were read and the prayers offered in a 
tongue intelligible to the assembled multitude. Justin Martyr 
says, that, among the early Christians, “‘ the commentaries of the 
Apostles and writings of the prophets were first read ; and then, 
when the reader had ceased, the president made an oration exhort- 
ing the people to remember and imitate the things which they had 
heard.”’? Such an exhortation would have been useless, if the 
language in which the writings of the Prophets and Apostles were 
read had not been a language familiar to the congregation. There 
is a well-known passage in Origen,’ where he asserts, that, ‘ the 
Greeks used Greek in their prayers, the Romans Latin, and so 

1 See Bingham, Z. A. Bk. x11. ch. quis extra ecclesiam, vocem; spectet 
iv. § 5; Horne, Introduction to Scriptures, celebres hymnorum sonitus; et inter 
11. pt. 1. ch. 11. divinorum quoque sacramentorum offi- 


2 See Usher, as above, cap. viii. sect. cia, responsionem devote confessionis ac- 
1v; Bingham, Z£. A. Bk. x1. ch. tv. cipiat.’’— Hilar. Jn Psalm. Ixv.; Usher, 


sect. 11. ubi supra. 
ὃ Catech. Mystagog. v. 5 Justinian, Novell. 187. See Usher, as 
_ * Homil. in i Cor. xiv.; Homil. xxxvi. above. 


jucta fin. ΤΠ Apolog. 1. p. 98. 
δ “ Audiat orantis populi, consistens ὃ Origen C. Celsum, σαι. 87. 


Sec. I.] AS THE PEOPLE UNDERSTANDETH. 579 


every one in his own language prays to God, and gives thanks, as 
he is able: and the God of all languages hears them that pray in 
all dialects, even as if all spake with but one voice.” From Je- 
rome we learn, that sometimes more than one language was used 
in the same service, because of the presence of men from different 
nations. He says, that, ‘‘ at the funeral of Paula, the Psalms were 
sung in Greek, Latin, and Syriac, because men of each of those 
languages were there.”! Indeed, eminent schoolmen and Roman 
Catholic divines, as Lyra, Thomas Aquinas and Harding, have 
fully allowed that in the primitive Church prayers were offered 
up in the vulgar tongue, that the people might be the better 
instructed.” 

The way in which the use of a dead language for public wor- 
ship came in, is pretty obvious. The Romans, as masters of the 
western world, strove to impose their own language on their 
colonial subjects. Thus the common tongue of Europe was Latin. 
The ecclesiastics were in constant connection with Rome, the centre 
of civilization, the chief city of Christian Europe. Thus the lan- 
guage most generally understood became too the language of litur- 
gical worship. By degrees, out of the ancient Latin grew the 
French, the Italian, the Spanish, and other dialects. Still the old 
Latin liturgies were preserved, and for a long time were, with no 
great difficulty, understood. By this time the clergy throughout 
the western Church had become still more closely united to Rome. 
More too of mystery had grown over men’s minds with regard to 
the Church’s sacred ordinances. Hence all things conspired to 
make the clergy willing to leave in the language of the central 
city the prayers of the distant provinces. And thus the change, 
which became needful when men’s languages had changed, was 
never effected. A feeling too that, as the Church was one and 
yet universal, so there should be but one universal tongue in which 
her prayers and praises should go up to God, lent a colouring of 
piety and poetry to the old custom of having Latin liturgies. 
And so till the Reformation, no efficient attempt was made to 
reform what many must have deemed an error, and to make the 
worship of God, to people as well as priests, a reasonable service. 

When this question came to be discussed in the Council of 
Trent, it was forbidden by an anathema to say that the mass should 


1 Hieron. Ad LEustochium, Epitaphium Contra Juellum, Art. 8, sect. 28. See 
phe Matris, juxta fin. Tom. 1v. Part Usher, as above; Jer. Taylor, Dissua- 
p. 687. sive, pt. 1. ch. 1. sect. 7; Bingham, Bk. 
"a Lyra, in 1 Cor. xiv.17; Aquinas Zn Χαμ. ch. Iv. 
1 Cor. xiv. Vol. xv1. fol. 84; Harding, 


580 OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION [Arr. XXIV. 


not be celebrated in any but the vulgar tongue, or the consecration 
not performed in a low voice.!_ And though in modern times some 
prayers are offered in the churches of the Roman communion in 
tongues understood of the people, yet the mass is never celebrated 
except in Latin, both to avoid profanation, and lest the very words 
which are supposed to have been used from the beginning should 
lose any of their force or sacredness by translation. 





ΒΈΟΤΙΟΝ Il.— SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


1 is not likely that there should be very much said in Scripture 

on this subject. The Bible seldom suggests, even to condemn, 
errors into which men had never fallen. Certainly, however, we 
can find no trace among the Jews of the use of prayers in an un- 
known tongue, nor yet among the Apostolic Christians. 

The only case in point appears to be that of the exercise of the 
gift of tongues among the Corinthian Christians. The purpose for 
which that miraculous power was conferred, was evidently, that the 
Gospel might be preached by unlearned men to all nations, peoples, 
and languages. Some of the Corinthian converts, having received 
the gift by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, used it to 
ostentation, not to edification, speaking in the congregations in 
languages not understood by those who were present. St. Paul 
rebukes this in the xivth chapter of his first Epistle; and there 
incidentally shows, that prayer in a tongue not intelligible to the 
congregation is contrary to the due order of the Church and the 
will of God. This is especially observable in verses 14-17: “ If 
I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my under- 
standing is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, 
and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the 
spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else, when thou 
shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of 
the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing that he 
understandeth not what thou sayest?” So again ver. 19: “In 
the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, 
that by my voice I might teach others, than ten thousand words in 
an unknown tongue.” And ver. 28: “If there be no interpreter, 
let him” (i. ὁ. the person who can speak only in a tongue unknown 


1 Sess. xx11. Can. 9. See also Sarpi, Hist. of the Council of Trent, p. 540. 


Src. ΠῚ] AS THE PEOPLE UNDERSTANDETH. 581 


to the hearers) “‘ keep silence in the Church; and let him speak 
to himself and to God.” 

_ All these arguments seem as clearly against having liturgies 
in a dead language, as against the custom which had grown up 
in the Church of Corinth, of using the gift of tongues when there 
was none to interpret them. Prayer is to be with the under- 
standing, not with the spirit only. Prayer and thanksgiving are 
not to be offered publicly in words, to which the unlearned cannot 
say Amen. A man may pray in such words in private to God, 
but not publicly in the Church. The reason assigned is, ‘“* God is 
not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of 
the saints’ (ver. 33). And the general rule laid down is, “ Let 
all things be done to edifying’ (ver. 26). 

No arguments from expediency seem fit to be set against such 
decisions of the Apostles. Now the only arguments of any weight 
for retaining Latin in the Liturgies are arguments from expediency. 
For instance, it is said, Latin is a general language, and so, well 
for the whole Church to use. But it is more true to say, that it is 
generally unknown, than that it is generally known ; for it is only 
the learned in all lands that understand it; the masses of the 
people (who have souls to be saved as well as the more instructed) 
do not understand it anywhere. It is said, that the holy services 
are kept from profanation by being veiled in the mystery of a 
difficult tongue. But it is surely more profanation, when people 
mutter sacred things, or listen to them being muttered, without 
understanding them, than when they reverently and intelligently 
join with heart and mind in solemnizing them. It is said again, 
that the use of the dead language fixes and preserves the sacred 
services; so that words used from Apostolic times are still used 
by the Church; and the mass is celebrated in the same syllables 
in which it was said by the primitive bishops. This, if extended 
to the whole service of the mass, is not strictly true; for the Ro- 
man missal does not actually agree with the various primitive 
liturgies, which primitive liturgies have considerable varieties 
among themselves. If the statement be confined to the very 
words of consecration; then surely we ought to use, not Latin, 
but Greek, in which these words are to be found in the new Tes- 
tament. If these be any virtue in the very words themselves, we 
are no nearer the original, if we say, Hoc est Corpus Meum, than 
if we say, This is My Body. 

In short, the custom of having prayers in an unknown tongue 
appears to have originated ina kind of accident, but to have been 


Se ΟΥ̓, eee Se ae ew ee 


582 OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION. [Arr. XXIV. 


perpetuated by design. It originated in the Latin becoming 
obsolete in Europe, and the prayers not being translated, as the 


various European dialects grew up. It was then found to be a 
means of keeping up mystery, and so priestly power; and there- 
fore it was preserved. But it is evidently without authority from 
Scripture, or from the primitive Church 


ARTICLE XXV. 


— 


Of the Sacraments. 


SacRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not 
only badges or tokens of Christian men’s 
profession, but rather they be certain 
sure witnesses, and effectual signs of 
grace, and God’s .good will towards us, by 
the which He doth work invisibly in us, 
and doth not only ‘quicken, but also 
strengthen and confirm our Faith in 
Him. 

There are two Sacraments ordained 
of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is 
to say, Baptism and the Supper of the 
Lord. 

Those five commonly called Sacra- 
ments, that is to say, Confirmation, Pen- 
ance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme 
Unction, are not to be counted for sacra- 
ments of the Gospel, being such as have 
grown partly of the corrupt following of 
the Apostles, partly are states of life 
allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have 
not like nature of Sacraments with Bap- 
tism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that 
they have not any visible sign or cere- 
mony ordained of God. 

The Sacraments were not ordained of 
Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried 
about, but that we should duly use them. 
And in such only as worthily receive 
the same they have a wholesome effect 
or operation : but they that receive them 
unworthily, purchase to themselves dam- 
nation, as St. Paul saith. 


De Sacramentis. 


SacraMentTa a Christo instituta, non 
tantum sunt note professionis Christia- 
norum, sed certa queedam potius testimo- 
nia, et efficacia signa gratie atque bon» 
in nos voluntatis Dei, per que invisibili- 
ter Ipse in nos operatur, nostramque 
fidem in se non solum excitat, verum 
etiam confirmat. 

Duo a Christo Domino nostro in Evan- 
gelio instituta sunt sacramenta, scilicet, 
Baptismus et Cena Domini. 

Quinque illa vulgo nominata Sacra- 
menta ; scilicet, Confirmatio, pcenitentia, 
ordo, matrimonium, et extrema unctio, 
pro sacramentis evangelicis habenda non 
sunt, ut que partim a prava apostolorum 
imitatione profluxerunt, partim vite sta- 
tus sunt in scripturis quidem probati, sed 
sacramentorum eandem cum Baptismo 
et Coena Domini rationem non habentes, 
ut que signum aliquod visibile, ceu 
ceremoniam a Deo institutam non ha- _ 
beant. 

Sacramenta non in hoc instituta sunt a 
Christo, ut spectarentur aut circumferren- 
tur; sed ut rite illis uteremur, et in his 
duntaxat, qui digne percipiunt, salutarem 
habent effectum : Qui vero indigne per- 
cipiunt, damnationem (ut inquit Paulus) 
sibi ipsis acquirunt. 





HE main substance of this Article is taken from the XIIIth 
Article of the Confession of Augsburg, the very words of 


which are adopted in the first part of it. 


The Articles agreed on 


between the Anglican and Lutheran reformers, in 1538, had one 
Article (the [Xth) to the same purport; though that went on to 
speak of Infant Baptism.2 The XXVIth Article of 1552 con- 
tained nearly the same statements as the present XX Vth; but had 


1 “Pe usu Sacramentorum docent; 
quod Sacramenta instituta sint, non modo 
ut sint note professionis inter homines, sed 
magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis 
Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confirman- 


dam fidem in his qui utuntur . pro- 
posita, &c.” — Confess. August. Art. X11I. 

* Cranmer’s Works by Jenkyns, ty.; 
Appendix, p. 285. ' 


ae ne ee a a a 


OF THE SACRAMENTS. (Arr. XXV. 


no reference to the seven Sacraments. It asserted that the whole- 
some effect of the Sacraments was not ex opere operato, “ of work 
wrought.” Moreover, there was the following sentence in it by 
way of introduction, which is almost in the words of St. Augustine : 
“Our Lord Jesus Christ hath knit together a company of new 
people with the Sacraments, most few in number, most easy to be 
kept, most excellent in signification, as is Baptism and the Lord’s 
Supper.””! | ἢ 

We may divide the Article, as it now stands, into four heads. 

I. Concerning the number of the Sacraments of the Gospel. 

II. Concerning their efficacy. 

III. Concerning their proper use. 

IV. Concerning their worthy reception. 

The whole Article is introductory to the six next in order after 
it, and is rather concerned with definitions than aught else. And 
as such I purpose to consider it. 


I. The word Sacrament (Sacramentum) is an ecclesiastical, 
rather than a Scriptural term. It is used indeed in the Latin 
translations for the Greek word μυστήριον, mystery. Yet the tech- 
nical use of both these terms in the Christian Church is rather 
patristic than Apostolical. The original meaning of the word 
Sacramentum was (1) anything sacred, hence (2) a sacred deposit, 
a pledge, and (3) most commonly, an oath, especially the military 
oath, which soldiers took to be faithful to their country, and obey 
the orders of their general. Whether the first, or the last and 
ordinary sense of the word was the origin of the ecclesiastical usage 
of it, may be a question. 

The earliest application’ of the term to anything Christian is to 
be found in the well-known letter of Pliny the younger to the 
emperor Trajan; in which he speaks of the Christians as wont to 
meet together on a certain fixed day, before sunrise, when they 
chanted hymns to Christ as to God, and bound themselves by a 
Sacrament not to commit any sort of wickedness.? ΤῈ is possible, 


1 The words of St. Augustine are: 
“ Sacramentis numero paucissimis, ob- 
servatione facillimis, significatione pra- 
stantissimis, societatem novi populi col- 
ligavit, sicuti est Baptismus Trinitatis 
nomine consecratus, communicatio Cor- 
pore et Sanguinis Ipsius; et si quid aliud 
n Scripturis Canonicis commendatur.” 
—Fpistol. 54, Op. Tom, 11. p. 124. He 
uses nearly the same words, Ve Doct, 
Christ. Lib. 111. c. 9, Tom. mr. pars 1. p. 49. 


2“ Adfirmabant autem, hanc fuisse 
summam vel culpe sua, vel erroris, quod 
essent soliti, stato die, ante lucem con- 
venire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo 
dicere secum invicem ; seque Decme mento 
non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne 
furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria com- 
mitterent, ne fidem fallerent, ne deposi- 
tum appellati abnegarent.”—Plin. Zpist 
97. 


Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 


585 


that the word Sacrament here meant simply an oath. Yet since 
Pliny reported it, asthe Christians had told it to him, it is prob- 
able enough, that he used the very word which he had heard 
from them, and that they used it in the Christian and technical 
sense, howsoever Pliny may have understood it. It is generally 
supposed that its application in this passage was to the Supper of 
the Lord.} 

In Tertullian, the earliest of the Latin fathers, we find the 
notion of the military oath applied to the Christian’s baptismal 
vow, to serve faithfully under the banner of the cross. ‘* We were 
called to the warfare of the living God, when we made answer ac- 
cording to the words of the Sacrament (in Sacramenti verba res- 
pondimus). No soldier goes to war with luxuries,” ? &c. 

This, however, is an exception to the rule. The commoner 
use of the word is either for a sacred rite in general, an outward 
sign of some more hidden reality — or else for certain particular, 
more exalted rites of the Gospel and the Church. It has, in short, 
a more extended, and a more restricted force. In its more ex- 
tended sense, it signified little more than a religious ordinance or a 
sacred sign. ‘Thus Tertullian, speaking of the charges of infan- 
ticide, brought by the heathens against the Christians, says that 
Christians were charged with ‘the Sacrament of infanticide.” 8 
He calls our Lord’s anointing by the Holy Ghost, Sacramentum 
unctionis.* St. Cyprian speaks of the many Sacraments contained 
in the Lord’s Prayer.’ He calls the three hours of prayer, ‘+ ἃ Sac- 
rament of the Trinity.”® He says, the manna was “a Sacrament 
of the equality with which Christ diffuses His gifts of light and 
grace upon His Church; and that the Red Sea was a Sacrament 
(i. ὁ. a divinely ordained figure) of baptism.” 7 Accordingly, we 
hear some of the ancients speaking of the two great ordinances of 
Baptism and the Eucharist, not as each but one Sacrament, but as 


each containing two Sacraments. 


In Baptism, the two Sacraments 


were the water, and the chrism which was anciently used after it.8 


1 See Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. 


¥ 

2 Ad Mart. 3; conf. De. Spectaculis, 
24; De Corona, 18; De Idololatria, 6, &e. 
Cf. Hieronym. Epist. 1. ad Heliodorum : 
** Recordare tyrocinii tui diem, quo 
Christo in baptismate consepultus, in 
sacramenti verba jurasti.”” — On the Bap- 
tismal Profession, see Bingham, x1. vii. 6. 

8 “Dicimur sceleratissimi, de sacra- 
mento infanticidii.”— Apolog. 7. 

* Adv. Praxeam, 28; see Bp. Kaye, 
Tertullian, p. 358. 

74 


5 “ Qualia autem sunt, fratres dilectis- 
simi, orationis Dominice sacramenta, 
quam multa, quam magna breviter in 
sermone collecta.”” — Cypr. De Oratione 
Dominica, T. 142, Oxford, 1682. 

ὁ. “Horam tertiam, sextam, nonam, 
br eee scilicet ‘Trinitatis.””—Ibid. E. 


7 Ibid. pistol. 69, al. 76, E. 187. 

8 Immediately after baptism in the 
early ages, followed the unction or 
chrism, and confirmation, or the laying 
on of hands. So Tertullian: “Exinde 


he ae ee eee 


586 [Arr. XXV. 


In the Eucharist, the two Sacraments were the bread and the 
wine. Thus St. Cyprian twice speaks of regeneration as to be 
obtained by the reception of both Sacraments; where the context 
shows, that the two Sacraments mean the washing of water and 
the imposition of hands, considered as parts of the one ordinance 
of Baptism.1. And so Isidore speaks of four great Sacraments, 
namely, Baptism and Chrism, the Body and the Blood of Christ.? 

The use of the term Sacrament then was very different among 
the fathers from its ordinary use amongst us. Yet there-was with 
them also a more restricted use of the term; and there is abundant 
proof that the two great Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist 
were markedly separated from, and preferred before all other 
sacraments or ordinances. It is observed, that Justin Martyr in 
his first apology, (see pp. 93,97,) when giving an account of the 
Christian religion and of its rites, mentions only Baptism and the 
Supper of the Lord. ‘Tertullian uses the word Sacramentum with 
the common laxity of the early writers, yet he specially applies it 
to Baptism, which he calls Sacramentum Fidei,’ Aque,* Lavacri,S 
and to the Eucharist, which he calls Sacramentum Eucharistice.® 
He does not seem to have applied it to any of the five Romish 
Sacraments, except to marriage, concerning which he specially 
alludes to the Latin translation of Eph. v. 32, where μέγα μυστή- 
ριον is rendered magnum Sacramentum.’ The same is the case 


OF THE SACRAMENTS. 


by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath 
given thee remission of all thy sins, He 
vouchsafe to anoint thee with the unction 
of His Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the 
inheritance of everlasting life. Amen.” 


egressi de lavacro perungimur benedicta 
unctione.” — De Baptismo, 7. ‘ Dehinc 
manus imponitur, per benedictionem in- 
yocans, et invitans Spiritum Sanctum.” 
—c. 8. Confirmation was anciently 


Po ee eee. ee oS ΡΤ eS ee ΔΝ ἐμ δ - 4... 


considered part of baptism, and follow- 
ed on it immediately. See Bingham, 
x11. 8; Suicer, 8. v. χρίσμα, τι. 1534; 
en 1. 1077; and Hooker, Bk. v. ch. 

Confirmation was sometimes delayed 
from the difficulty of obtaining the pres- 
ence of a bishop at the time of baptism ; 
but unction seems to have been always 
administered with baptism. ‘ Ungi quo- 
que necesse est eum, qui baptizatus sit, 
ut accepto Chrismate, id est, unctione, 
esse unctus Dei, et habere in se gratiam 
oe possit.” — Cypr. Epist. uxx. E. 


The custom of anointing after bap- 
tism was retained by our reformers in the 
first Service Book, though omitted in 
the second. The following was the form 
prescribed. “‘ Then the priest shall anoint 
the infant upon the head, saying, Al- 
mighty God, the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who hath regenerate thee 


— Two Liturgies of Edw. VI, Oxf. 1888, 
p. 834. 

Confirmation was not considered es- 
sential to the receiving of the Holy 
Ghost in baptism, but was “ only a sacra- 
mental complement.” — See Hooker, v. 
ch. txvi. § 6, and St. Jerome, as cited 
there. 

1 “Tunc demum plene sanctificari, et 
esse Filii Dei possunt, si sacramento 
utroque nascantur,” &c. — /pist. LXx11. 
E. 196, Cf. Zp. uxxi1t. p. 207. See also 
Bingham, x11. i. 4. i 

2 “Sunt autem sacramenta, baptis- 
mus et chrisma; corpus et sanguis 
Christi.” — Isidor. Origin. Lib. v1. ©. XUX. 
apud Bingham, ubi supra. 

oe te eh 

ptismo, 1, 

5 De Virgin. Veland. 2. 

6 De Corona, 8. 

Το De Jejuniis, 8. See Bishop Kaye’s 
Tertullian, p. 858. 


Arr. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 587 


with the later Latin fathers. St. Augustine, when contrasting the 
Sacraments of the Law with those of the Gospel, speaks of the 
former as many, but the latter as very few, and then enumerates 
only Baptism and the Communion: in one passage adding, ‘and 
if there be any other commended to us in the Canonical Scriptures :” 
but in another, instancing only Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 
In like manner, speaking of Adam and Eve as types of Christ and 
the Church, he says that, “* As from the side of Adam when sleep- 
ing sprang Eve, so from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross 
flowed the Sacraments of the Church” (Sacramenta Eeclesie pro- 
flucerunt), i. e. the two Sacraments typified by the water and the 
blood.2— Elsewhere he says, “The water and the blood which 
flowed from the side, were the twin Sacraments of the Church 
(Eeclesie gemina Sacramenta), the water in which the bride is 
purified, the blood with which she is endowed.” ® 

The same thing is observable among the Greeks. Though they 
use the word mystery, as the Latins do Sacrament, for any sacred 
sign; yet baptism and the Eucharist are markedly distinguished 
from all other ordinances. Ignatius speaks of them as the two 
rites, which may not be celebrated without the bishop’s authority.’ 
St. Cyril couples “the holy mysteries of baptism,” and the 
“¢ spiritual and heavenly mysteries” ‘of the Holy Altar,” as those 
things for which the catechumens were trained.6 St. Chrysos- 
tom joins together Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as the two 
ordinances necessary to salvation. “If none can enter into the 
kingdom of Heaven except he be born again of water and the 
Spirit, and if he who eateth not the Flesh of the Lord nor 
drinketh His blood is cast out of life eternal, and if these things are 
performed by the hands of the priests,” 6 ὥς. So he speaks, almost 
in the same terms with St. Augustine, of the blood and water from 
our Saviour’s side, as typifying the two mysteries or Sacraments 


1 In the one passage, Epist. 54, given 
above, he says: “ Sicuti est baptismus 
Trinitatis nomine consecratus, commu- 
nicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius, et si 
guid aliud in Scripturis Canonicis com- 
mendatur.” 

In the other passage, De JDoctrina 
Christiana, Lib. 111. ¢ 9, he says sim- 
ply: ‘‘ Sicuti est baptismus et celebratio 
Corporis et Sanguinis Domini.” 

2 In Johann. Evang. cap. iv. tract. xv. 
Tom. 111. pars 2, p. 409. 

3“ Percussum est enim latus Ejus, ut 
evangelium loquitur, et statim manavit 
sanguis et aqua, que sunt Ecclesie gem- 


ina sacramenta; aqua ex quaest sponsa 
purificata, sanguis ex quo invenitur esse 
Sar Symb. ad Catech. 15, Tom. 
6 

‘this latter book is not certainly Au- 
gustine’s ; though the Benedictine edi- 
tors consider this genuine, and the three 
tracts which follow it spurious. The 
like sentiments occur often in St. Au- 
gustine. See Serm. ccxrx. c. 14; Ih 
Vigiliis Pasche, quoted under Art. x1x. 
Sect. a 

Sm VIII. 
5 Ca ig xvitt. 14. 
® De Sacerdot. r11. 


588 OF THE SACRAMENTS. 


by which the Church is constituted.1_ In which expressions he is 
followed, nearly word for word, by Theophylact.? 

With whatever latitude therefore the word mystery and. Sac- 
rament are used in their general acceptation by the fathers, there 
is still a higher and more special signification, in which they are 
applied to the two great ordinances of the Gospel, instituted by 
Christ Himself. 

As for the number seven insisted on by the Church of Rome, 
we cannot find it in the writings of the fathers. Peter Lombard is 
said to have first devised it in the twelfth century, and from him it 
was adopted generally by the Schoolmen.* It was laid down with 
authority in a decree to the Armenians, sent from the Council of 
Florence 1439, which runs only in the name of Pope Eugenius.é 
It was then confirmed by the provincial Council of Sens, otherwise 
called the Council of Paris, a. Ὁ. 1528 ;° after that, by the Council 
of Trent, a. Ὁ. 1547.’ It finally stands as part of the Creed of 
Pope Pius IV.8’ 

The confessions of all the reformed Churches speak of but two 
Sacraments of the Gospel.? In England, the Articles about Religion 
and the Necessary Doctrine, put forth in Henry VIIIth’s reign, in 
1536 and 1543 respectively, retain the notion of seven Sacraments. 
Even the first book of Homilies, a. p. 1547, speaks of “ the Sac- 
rament of matrimony,” and that, immediately after speaking of 
the “‘Sacrament of baptism.” Cranmer’s Catechism speaks of 
three Sacraments as instituted by Christ, baptism, absolution, the 
Lord’s Supper.“ But the final judgment of the reformed Church 
of England appears first in this Article ; secondly, in the language 
of the Catechism, where Sacraments are defined as outward signs 
of inward grace, “‘ ordained by Christ Himself,” and are said to be 


(Arr. ΧΧΥ͂. 


1 ἐξῆλϑε δὴ yap καὶ αἷμα. οὐκ ἁπλῶς, 
οὐδὲ ὡς ἔτυχεν, αὗται ἐξῆλϑον αἱ πηγαί " ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐπειδὴ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τούτων ἡ ἐκκλησία συνέ- 
στηκε" καὶ ἴσασιν οἱ μυσταγωγούμενοι δι᾽ 
ὕδατος μὲν ἀναγεννώμενοι, δι’ αἵματος δὲ καὶ 
σαρκὸς τρεφόμενοι. ἐντεῦϑεν λαμ- 
βώνει τὰ μυστήρια. --- Homil. in Johann. 88, 
Tom. τι. p. 915. 


Elsewhere he speaks of the blood and 454 


water being εἰς τύπον τῶν μυστηρίων, for a 
type of the Sacraments. — Tom. v. Homil. 
OXVIII. 

2 Οὐχ ἁπλῶς ταῦτα γίνεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ ἡ ζωὴ διὰ τούτων τῶν dbo γίνεται 
καὶ συνίσταται, δι’ ὕδατος μὲν γεννάμεϑα, 
δὲ αἵματος καὶ σώματος τρεφόμεϑα. --- The- 
ophyl. In Johannis, cap. xix. See Suicer, 


Β. V. μυστήριον. 
8 ft should be added that both mys- 


tery and Sacrament were κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν ap- 
plied to the Eucharist. See Suicer, as 
above, and Waterland, On the Eucharist, 
ch. 1. 

* Lombard Sentent. Liv. rv, dist. 11. § 1. 

5 Decret. Eugen. Papa τν. αὐ Armenos 
ap. Labb. Concil. Tom. aK 534. 

® Can. x. ; Labb. Concil. Tom. xrv. p. 


7 Sess. viz. Can. 1. See Archbishop 
Bramhall, Answer to M. De la Milletiére, 
Bramhall’s Works, 1. p. 55. Oxf. 1842. 

8 See Sylloge Confessionum, p. 4. 

® See Luther’s Catechismus Major, Op- 
era, ‘Tom. v. p. 636 ; Sylloge Confessionum, 
pp. 75, 127, 277, 849, 876. 

10 First Part of the Sermon of Swearing. 

11 Cranmer’s Catechism, p. 188. Ow 
the effect of Absolution, see p. 202. 


Art. XXYV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 589 


“two only as generally necessary to salvation;”’ and thirdly, in the 
second book of Homilies, the words of which are so much to the 
purpose that we may well refer to them here: “ As for the number 
of them, if they should be considered according to the exact sig- 
nification of a Sacrament, namely, for the visible signs, expressly 
commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the 
promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and 
joining in Christ, there be but two: namely, baptism and the 
Supper of the Lord. For, although absolution hath the promise 
of forgiveness of sin; yet by the express word of the new Testa- 
ment it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, 
which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying 
on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the new Testament to 
be used in absolution, as the visible signs in baptism and the Lord’s 
Supper are: and therefore absolution is no such Sacrament as 
baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of 
ministers hath His visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise 
of remission of sins, as all other Sacraments except the two above- 
named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other Sacrament else, be 
such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in 
general acceptation the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to 
anything, whereby an holy thing is signified. In which under- 
standing of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not 
only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for 
supplying the number of the seven Sacraments ; but also to divers 
and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such 
like ; not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments in the 
same signification that the two fore-named Sacraments are. Dio- 
nysius, Bernard, de Cena Domini, et Ablut. pedum.” } 

In this passage we see clearly our own Church’s definition of a 
Sacrament, and the points of difference between ourselves and the 
Romish divines. The Homily defines a Sacrament of the Gospel 
to be ‘+a visible sign expressly commended to us in the new Tes- 
tament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of 
our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ.” This closely 
corresponds with the words of the Catechism: ‘ An outward and 
visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained 
by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same” 
spiritual grace, ‘and a pledge to assure us thereof.” And again, 
the definition of this XXVth Article is of similar significance : 
“Sacraments ordained of Christ be . . . . certain sure witnesses, 

1 Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments. 


590 OF THE SACRAMENTS. (Arr. XXV. 


and effectual (efficacia) signs of grace, and God’s good-will towards 
us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us.” 

Now this definition does not exclude matrimony, confirmation, 
absolution, and orders, from being in some sense Sacraments; but 
it excludes them from being “* such Sacraments as baptism and the 
Communion.” No other ordinances but baptism and Communion 
have an express sign ordained by Christ Himself, and annexed 
thereto the promise of free forgiveness of sins,” and “ of inward 
and spiritual grace given to us.” ‘Therefore these have clearly a 
preéminence over all other ordinances, and may therefore κατ᾽ 
ἐξοχὴν be called Sacraments of the Gospel: being also the only 
ordinances which are “ generally necessary to salvation.” 

It seems hardly needful to enter on a full consideration of each 
of the five Romish Sacraments here. Four out of the five the 
Church of England admits, at least in a modified form. This Ar- 
ticle declares them to be “such as have grown partly of the cor- 
rupt following of the Apostles, partly to be states of life allowed in 
the Scriptures.”” Matrimony is especially to be called a “ state of 
life allowed in the Scriptures.” It is possible, that orders and con- 
firmation may be so called also. Yet orders, confirmation, and 
penance or absolution, as the Roman Church administers them, are 
mixed with some superstitious ceremonies. Hence perhaps they, 
as well as extreme unction, may be considered in the Article, to 
have “ grown” (in their Roman Catholic or medizeval form) “ of 
the corrupt following of the Apostles.” 

1. Confirmation, in the primitive Church, followed immediately 
on baptism, and, as above noted, was made ordinarily a part of 
baptism. Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem both speak of the 
catechumens as first receiving baptism, and then immediately on 
their coming out-of the water, receiving chrism and imposition of 
hands. The separation of confirmation from baptism arose, some- 
times from the difficulty of obtaining the presence of a bishop, 
sometimes from the reconciling of heretics, who were confirmed 
but not rebaptized, and latterly from the deferring the confirmation 
of infants ; it being thought good that, though baptized, they should 
delay their confirmation till they were trained and seasoned for 
serving as soldiers in the army of Christ.2_ The result has been 
that, after the first ages, confirmation became a separate rite from 


1 Tertullian, De Baptismo, 7, 8, quoted Bingham, x11. i. 1; Suicer, 8. vv. σῴρα- 
above. Cyril. Catech, Myst. 111. 1, cote Ης χρίσμα 
ὁμοίως ἀναβεβηκόσιν ἀπὸ τῆς κι ολυμβήϑ «Ὁ See Hooker, Bk. v. Ixvi. 7. 
τῶν ἱερῶν ναμάτων ἐδόϑη xpioua.— τὰ 5 


Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 591 


baptism, and we still continue it as such, believing that so it is more 
fit for edifying. 

2. Ordination we esteem, scarcely less than does the Church of 
Rome, as an appointment of Christ Himself. We believe that 
God gives grace for the office of the ministry to those who receive 
it aright. We observe that, though our Lord commanded no par- 
ticular sign, yet the Apostles always used the laying on of hands. 
But with regard to the inward grace, we read not that forgiveness 
of sins or personal sanctification were promised to its right re- 
ception, but rather the Holy Ghost for the work of the ministry. 
Therefore, although we retain it as essential for the maintenance 
of a rightly constituted ministry in the Church, yet we place it not 
on a par with the two Sacraments of baptism and Communion: 
which are the means of obtaining and increasing spiritual life to our 
souls, and of binding together the company of God’s people in one.} 

3. Matrimony is not so much a Sacrament of the Gospel as 
‘¢an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s in- 
nocency ;”’ it is neither a badge, “by which Christian men are dis- 
cerned from others, which be not christened;” nor is it a means, 
whereby pardon of sins and inward sanctification are conveyed to 
us by the Spirit of God. Hence again, though, like other sacred 
ceremonies, it may be called a Sacrament, and anciently was so 
called, it comes not under our definition of a Sacrament of the 
Gospel. In the Epistle to the Ephesians (v. 32), St. Paul does 
indeed say concerning it, “ This is a great mystery ;” or rather 
(Τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν), ““ This mystery is great.” The 
Latins have translated his words magnum est Sacramentum ; and so 
it has been argued, that matrimony is specially called a Sacrament. 
It is plain, however, that St. Paul’s meaning is merely this. The 
marriage of Adam and Eve (and indeed marriage in the general) 
was esteemed by the Jews, and is constantly spoken of in the new 
Testament, as a figure, type or mystery of the union and marriage 
betwixt Christ and his Church. The fathers all seem to under- 
stand it so. Tertullian says, that Adam’s calling Eve “bone of 
his bone and flesh of his flesh,” was a great Sacrament concerning 
Christ and His Church.? St. Chrysostom understands it that mar- 
riage was an allegory of Christ’s union to His Bride, the Church. 
« That it was something great and wonderful, Moses, or rather 


‘ “Tn nullum nomen religionis sive 7? ‘Nam etsi Adam statim prophe- 
vere sive false coagulari homines pos- tavit, magnum illud sacramentum in 
sunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum vel sacra- Christum et Ecclesiam: Hoc nune os ex 
mentorum visibilium consortio colligan- ossibus meis,’’? &c. — De Anima, α. 11. ‘See 
tur.’—August. C. Faustum, x1x. 11. See also De Exhort. Castitat. c. 5. 
Wordsworth, Theophil. Anglic. ch. σαι. 


es ΡΥ Υ 


ΠΥ —— ee ee ee a Te 


592 OF THE SACRAMENTS. (Arr. XXV. 


God, intimated. For the present, however, saith he, I speak con- 
cerning Christ, both that He left the Father, and came down, came 
to the Bride, and became one Spirit. or he that is joined unto the 
Lord is one Spirit. And he says well, It is a great mystery. And 
then as though he were to say, nevertheless the allegory does not 
destroy affection, he adds, Let every one of you in particular so love 
his wife even as himself.”’1 So too Theodoret and Theophylact 3 
explain it, namely, that the Apostle speaks of marriage as a mys- 
tery or allegory of Christ and the Church. 

4. Penance in the Church of Rome consists of three parts: con- 
fession, absolution, and satisfaction. The origin of it was in the 
early penitential discipline of the Church. In the primitive ages, 
when baptized Christians had committed grievous sins, they were 
placed for a time in the position of penitents. Their discipline 
consisted of three parts: namely, 1, confession ; 2, separation from 
the Church ; 3, absolution. 

At first it appears that confession was made publicly by the 
offender in the face of the Church, and was probably an humble 
acknowledgment of sins which already had given offence to the 
company of believers. Yet very early it was commended to peni- 
tents to seek out for themselves a wise spiritual adviser, to whom 
they should confide their more secret offences, that, if he judged it 
expedient, such offences might afterwards be confessed in the face 
of the congregation. In process of time the bishops appointed a 
regular officer or penitentiary, to hear these private confessions, and 
to judge whether they should be made public or not. Socrates 
says, this officer was first appointed for the restoration of those 
who had lapsed in the Decian persecution ;5 though Sozomen thinks 
such a minister must have been necessary, and so in existence from 
the first.6 The* duty of this penitentiary was, to inquire into the 
nature of the penitents’ offences, to prescribe to them certain 
modes of humiliation, and if needful a public acknowledgment of 
their sins ; and then to give them absolution.’ In course of time, 
a scandalous offence having been confessed to a presbyter in the 


1 Chrysost. In Ephes. v. 82, Homil. xx. catum tuum .... Si intellexerit et 
2 Theodoret and Theophylact, ad hunc previderit talem esse languorem tuum 
locum. See Suicer, s. v. μυστήριον. See qui in conventu totius Ecclesie exponi 
also Hammond and Whitby On Ephes. vy. debeat et curari, ex quo fortassis et 
88. Macknight has an excellent note on ceteri wdificari poterunt, et tu ipse facile 
the on e. sanari,” &c. — Origen Jn Ps, xxxvii. Hom- 
8 ertullian, De Penitentia, c. 9, il. 2. 
10; Augustin. Homil. xu1x. 8,Tom. v. ὅδ Socr. H. Z. Lib. v. ο. 19. 
. 1054. ® Sozomen, Lib. vir. c. 16. 
* So Origen: “Tantummodo circum- 7 Ibid. 
spice diligentius cui debeas confiteri pec- 


Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 


598 


Greek Church, which produced a public excitement, Nectarius, 
Bishop of Constantinople, was induced to abolish the office of peni- 
tentiary.! St. Chrysostom was the immediate successor of Nec- 
tarius. It appears from his writings, that public confession still 
continued to be a part of discipline ;? although we have reason to 
think that the congregation was not always informed of the exact 
nature of the crimes for which the penitent was suffering penance 
and confessing guilt, but only that they knew them to be great and 
deadly offences. This much, however, we learn from the writings 
both of St. Chrysostom and of his great contemporary, St. Augus- 
tine, that the Church in their days did not consider private confes- 
sion of private sins essential to salvation, but only the public con- 
fession of public scandals necessary to the discipline of the Church. 
‘‘ What have I to do with men,” says St. Augustine, “that they 
should hear my confessions?”’* ‘I do not compel you,” says St. 
Chrysostom, ‘* to discover your sins in the presence of men. Un- 
fold your conscience before God, show Him your wounds, and from 
Him seek healing.” ® 

Leo the Great, who was Bishop of Rome, a. pv. 440, is said 
to have been the first innovator on the penitential discipline of the 
Church ; for he forbade sins which had been confessed to the priest 
to be published in the Church, deciding that private confession was 
sufficient for the clearing of the conscience of the offenders. Theo- 
dore, Archbishop of Canterbury in the seventh century, is said 
to have been the first who altogether abolished public penance for 
private sins.’ Redemption of penance also -by pecuniary fines be- 
came, in process of time, a common practice, which some also refer 
to Theodore as the originator. Along with private confession 
grew the custom of private absolution.? And afterwards the form 
itself of absolution became more peremptory and authoritative ; 19 
till at length auricular confession, followed by absolution and satis- 
faction, was elevated to the full dignity of a necessary Sacrament. 


1 Soer. Sozom. Ibid. 

2 Epist. ad Innocent. Tom. 111. p. 517; 
In Epist. ad Ephes. Hom. 111. Tom. x1. 
p. 28; In Epist. ad Ebre. Hom. τν. Tom. 
x11. pp. 48, 49. 

3 August. In Symbol. ad Catechumen. 
Lib. τ: α. 15. 

* “ Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus, 
ut audiant confessiones meas, quasi ipsi 
sanaturi sint omnes languores meos ? -- 
Confession. Lib. x. c. 8, Tom. 1. p. 171. 

5 Οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰς ϑεατρόν σε ἄγω τῶν συν- 
δούλων τῶν σῶν, οὐδὲ ἐκκάλυψαι τοῖς ἀνϑρώ- 
more ἀναγκάζω τὰ ἤματα" τὸ συνειδὸς 
ἀνάπτυξον ἔμπροσϑεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ αὐτῷ 

75 


δεῖξον τὰ τραύματα, καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτῷ τὰ φάρ- 
μακα αἴτησον. Chrysost. De Incomprehen- 
sibili Det Natura, Hom. v. § 7, Tom. 1. p. 
490. 

6 Leo. Epist. 186, ad Episc. Campan. 

7 “Theodorus, homo grecus, primus 
aperte morem sustulit publice de crimin- 
ibus occultis peenitendi.” — Morinus De 
Administ. Panitent. x. 17, 2, quoted by 
Marshall in Penitential Discipline, ch. 11. 


§ 1. 
8 Marshall, ch. ri. ὃ 2. 
9 Tbid. ὃ 8. 
10 Thid. ὃ 4. 


594 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Anr. XXV 


The Council of Trent anathematizes. all who deny it to be t 
and properly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ Himself,) and ne- 
cessary to salvation jue divino, or who say that the method of con- 
fessing secretly to the priest alone (which the Church Catholic has 
observed from the beginning) is alien to Christ’s institution and 
of human invention.? 

The reformed Churches have generally abolished auricular. con- 
fession, as obligatory and sacramental. The Lutherans indeed still 
retain it, as a regular part of Church order and discipline. The 
Augsburg Confession declares concerning, confession, that. it, is 
right to retain private absolution in the Church, but that it is not 
necessary in confession to enumerate every individual sin.? Calvin 
also recommended both private confession to a pastor, and private 
absolution when needed for the remedy of any special infirmity ; 
but he says, it should not be made obligatory upon all, but only 
commended to such as need it. Our own reformers appear to have 
taken the same wise and moderate view. Ridley, the greatest 
light of the English Reformation, writes shortly before his death : 
*¢ Confession unto the minister, which is able to instruct, correct, 
comfort, and inform the weak, wounded, and ignorant, conscience, 
indeed I ever thought might do much good in Christ’s, con- 
gregation, and so, I assure you, I think even to this day.” ® So the 
second part of the Homily of Repentance, after condemning the 
auricular confession of the Church of Rome, says, “1 do not say, 
but that if any do find themselves troubled in conscience, they 
may repair to their learned curate or pastor,” ὥς. The exhortation 
to the Communion bids those, who cannot quiet their own con- 
sciences, come to the curate, “ or some other discreet and learned 
minister. of God’s word, and open his griet, that by, the ministry. of 
God’s holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together 
with ghostly council and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, 
and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness,”’ In the seryice for 
the Visitation of the Sick, it is enjoined on the, minister, that he 
shall move the sick person “to make a special confession of his sins, 
if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter ;’’ and 
a form of absolution is appointed to be used, after such confession, 
to those who ‘humbly and heartily desire it.” Thus the Church 
of England provides for all troubled consciences the power of re- 
lieving themselves, by making confession of guilt to their pastor, 


1 Sess. xrv. Can. 1. 4 Institut, Lib. 111. c. rv. §§ 12, 14. 
epee ir 5 Letter to West, — a Sore .» 
‘onf. August. Art. x11.; Si , Pp. in Oxford, April 8, 1 ; 9 
118. ecg sh ϑιυίωρα, Ῥ Martyrs, p. 30. London, 1837. 


Ast. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 595 


or “‘any other discreet and learned minister,” and so gives them 
comfort and counsel; but does not bind every one of necessity to 
rehearse all his private sins to man, nor elevate such useful confes- 
sion into a Sacrament essential to salvation.1 

The question concerning the power of the keys, as exercised by 
the ministers of God, may well be reserved to a future Article. It 
may be sufficient to observe here, that the chief Seripture: ground 
for private confession is to be found in the language of St. James, 
chap. v. 14-16. There the Apostle counsels the sick to send for 
the presbyters of the Church who are to pray over them; and it is 
promised that such prayers shall be especially effectual for the par- 
don of sins. It is then added, ““ Confess your faults one.to another, 
and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual 
fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (ver. 16). And 
this is illustrated by the efficacy of the prayers of the. prophet 
Elijah, at whose intercession rain was first withheld, and then, given 
again. The context, in which all this occurs, compared with the 
promise given by our Lord to His ministers (Matt. xviii. 18. John 
xx. 23), and with the custom of the Church from the earliest 
times, has been ever considered as a ground for the practice con- 
tinued in the Church of England, that the sick should be especially 
visited by the clergy, should be moved to confession, οἵ" sins, and 
should look to the prayers of the minister as means for obtaining 
from God pardon, grace, and if it be His will, restoration to health 
and strength.? 

There can be no doubt, that a distressed conscience may be 
soothed and guided by confidence in a spiritual, adviser. Most 
people, much in earnest, and much oppressed with a sense. of sin, 
have yearned for such confidence. Hence the Church should al- 
ways afford to the sin-stricken soul the power of unburdening itself, 
But, on the other hand, whatever tends to lead. people to. substitute 
confession to man for confession to God, and to make the path of 
repentance less rugged than the Gospel makes it, must be danger: 
ous: Such is the systematic and. compulsory confession. of the 
Church of Rome, followed as it is by absolution and penance, 
which too often seem to speak peace to the soul, perhaps before its 
peace is sealed in Heaven. The penitent finds it far easier to,un- 
burden his soul to the priest, than to seek, day and night, with bro- 
ken spirit, for pardon from God: and, when he has once, confided 
his: griefs to his: spiritual guide, he. easily’ substitutes that guide’s 


1 The student is.especially referred for 2. See Dr. Hammond. on this passage 
a history of this: subject. to Marshall’s of St. James. 
Penitential Discipline, ch, 11. 111. 


596 OF THE SACRAMENTS. (Arr. XXV. 


counsels for the dictates of his own conscience: and no counsels from 
without can speak as fearfully as the whispers of remorse within. 
Hence the danger of healing the wound lightly, —of substituting 
false peace for that peace which can come only from a true peni- 
tence, and from the sense of God’s pardoning love through Christ. 
Confession has been well called “the luxury of repentance.” 1} 
Access to it is not to be denied to the dying, the perplexed, or the 
broken-hearted ; but it is to be feared for the morbid spirit, and 
still more to be feared, as a mere routine of ordinary life, as a salv- 
ing over of the conscience stained by sin, and seeking an easy 
deliverance from its warnings and reproofs. 

5. Hatreme Unetion is an ordinance concerning which we differ 
from the Church of Rome more than on the other four. We ad- 
mit the proper use of confirmation, confession, orders, and matri- 
mony ; but extreme unction we neither esteem to be a Sacrament, 
nor an ordinance of the Church at all. As used in the modern 
Church of Rome, it implies unction with olive oil, blessed by the 
bishop, and applied by the priest to the five senses of the dying 
man. It is considered as conveying God’s pardon and support in 
the last hour. It is administered when all hope of recovery is 
gone, and generally no food is permitted to’ be taken after it. 

The Roman Catholic controversialists can find no primitive 
authority for this ordinance, except that of Pope Innocent the 
First, in the fifth century.2 In a letter to Decentius* he answers 
a question, whether the sick might be anointed with oil, and whether 
the bishop might anoint? He replies that this might be done, 
arguing from the language of St. James. But, if extreme une- 
tion were then a Sacrament of the Church, it is impossible that 
one bishop should have asked this question of another ; or, if he 
did, that the other should not at once have reminded him that 
it was a well-known sacrament of immemorial usage.* This is the 
only authority from patristic ages that the Romanist divines can 
bring. 

They insist, therefore, the rather on the authority from Scrip- 
ture. That authority, however, is but slender. When our Lord 
sent out His Apostles and gave them power to “heal the sick,” 
“they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” 
(Mark vi. 13). Here unction was evidently an outward sign sim- 
ilar to that used by our Saviour, when He made clay and put it to 
the blind man’s eyes. It was connected. with the miraculous power 


1 Taylor’s Notes from Life. 8 Epist. 1. ad Decentium, c. 8. 
“Ὁ Bellarmine, De Extrema Une- “ See Burnet on this Article. 
, cap. IV. 


OE —— el CU 


Art. XXYV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 597 


of healing. That power lasted for some time in the Church. Ac- 

cordingly, St. James desires the sick to send for the elders of the 

Church, to whom the miraculous gifts were mostly committed, and 
enjoins that with prayer for the pardon of sins should be joined 

anointing with oil, in order to the restoration of health; that as the 

Apostles used unction upon those whom they healed, so the elders 

of the Church, who had the gift of healing, should do likewise. 

“Ts any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the 

Church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the 

name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and 

the Lord shall raise him up” (James v. 14,15). Here the end 

of the anointing appears to be that ‘‘ the Lord should raise him up.” 

Now this exactly corresponds with the miraculous cures of the 

early ages, but not at all with the extreme unction of late times. 

Extreme unction is only administered when recovery is hopeless. 

St. James enjoined unction with the special object of recovery. 

So long then as miraculous powers remained in the Church, it was. 
reasonable that anointing of the sick should be retained ; but, when 

those powers ceased, it was reasonable that the unction should cease 

also. 

It was very natural, however, that, when the miraculous powers 
began to decline, the custom of anointing, which at first had refer- 
ence to bodily diseases, should still be continued with reference to 
spiritual maladies. Yet we cannot trace clearly the transition. 
The use of oil, connected with real or supposed miracles, is fre- 
quently alluded to; but it is not till late that there occurs any clear 
reference to it, as a religious or sacramental rite. Innocent III. 
at the end of the twelfth century, is quoted by Bellarmine next 
to Innocent 1.1 His witness is, no doubt, plain enough. A still 
fuller confirmation of extreme unction is given by Pope Eugenius 
in the Council of Florence ; at which, it will be remembered, there 
was an intention of reconciling the Greek with the Latin Church.? 
The Greeks still practise unction, but do not esteem it a Sacra- 
ment. At the Council of Trent there were four canons passed, de- 
claring extreme unction to be a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, 
conferring good, remitting sins, and comforting the infirm.® 

The English reformers retained a form of anointing the sick in 
the first Service Book of Edward VI.; though it does not appear 


1 Bellarmine, Ibid. Bellarmine indeed treme unction; of which they certainly 
refers to Origen, Hom. 11. in ZLevit.; do not speak. To anything farther he 
Chrysostom, De Sacerdot. 111. &c.; but can call no witness, after Innocent L., be 
he acknowledges that he only refers to fore Alcuin. 
them as quoting the words of St. James, 2 Decretum Eugenii ad Armen. ubi supra 
not as speaking of the Sacrament of ex- * Sess. x1v. 


698 OF THE SACRAMENTS. (Arr. XX. 


that they attributed any sacramental efficacy to it, but merely al- 
lowed it to be used “if the sick person desired it,” with a prayer 
for pardon of sins and restoration of bodily health.’ Cranmer had 
long before, a. Ὁ. 1540, expressed his opinion, that there was no 
ground in Scripture or antiquity for considering the number of the 
Sacraments to be seven; and especially had pronounced, that 
«ς Unction of the sick with oilto remit venial sins, as it is now used, 
is not spoken of in Scripture, nor in any ancient author.”? The 
second Service Book entirely omitted all reference to unction in 
the service for the Visitation of the Sick. 

The merits of the question rest entirely on the two following 
points of inquiry: 1. Is the passage in St. James to be considered 
as Apostolical authority for the institution of a Sacrament in the 
Church ? or has it reference to the cure of bodily disease? 2. 15 
the doubtful answer of Pope Innocent I., in the fifth century, 
sufficient ground for believing that extreme unction had prevailed 
from the first? or, on the contrary, do the deep silence of his pred- 
ecessors, and his own hesitating reply, argue plainly, that they 
**had no such custom, neither the churches of God?” Roman 
Catholics answer affirmatively to the former of these alternatives. 
Reformed Churches undoubtingly adopt the latter. 

Having thus considered what the Article says (I.) concerning 
the number of the Sacraments, we have paved the way for the rest 
of its statements. Limiting the name Sacrament to Baptism and 
the Eucharist, we have merely to consider (II.) what are the ben- 
efits we receive by; (III.) what is the right use of these two 
ordinances; and (IV.) who are their proper recipients ? 


II. The efficacy of the Sacraments. 

This question must be discussed more particularly in the 
XXVIIth and XXVIIIth Articles. To speak generally on it 
now, we may observe, that the doctrine of the fathers on this sub- 
ject was very clear and strong from the very first. Ignatius speaks 
of a Christian’s baptism as his spiritual armour,’ and, concerning 
the Eucharist he writes, ‘Ifa man be not within the altar, ho is 
deprived of the bread of God.” * “I desire the bread of God, 
which is the Flesh of Christ, and as drink I long for His Blood, 
which is love incorruptible.” 5 The Epistle of Barnabas, which 


1 Two Liturgies of Edward VI. p. —Ad’Polyc. v11. This passage is in the 


866. Syriac version. 
2 See “ Questions and Answers onthe * Ad Eph. v. 
Sacraments,” Works, 11. pp. 100, 108. δ Ad Rom. vir. This passage alse is 


ὃ τὸ βάπτισμα ὑμῶν μενέτω ὡς ὅπλα. in the Syriac. 


Arr, XXV_] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 599 


though probably not ‘written by the companion of St. Paul, is doubt- 
᾿ Jess one of the earliest remains of Christian antiquity, speaks of 
“‘ That baptism, which brings forgiveness of sins,”” and says, “" That 
we go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up 
again bringing forth fruit.”1 Justin Martyr, in his account of 
the Christian Sacraments, speaks of men as “ regenerated” and 
receiving remission of sins in the water of baptism,? and as receiv- 
ing in the Eucharist, not “ὁ common bread and common drink,” but 
“the Flesh and Blood of the incarnate Jesus.’’? Trenzeus is as 
clear on both the grace of baptism and the reception of Christ in 
the Eucharist. Tertullian speaks of the “blessed Sacrament 
of water, in which, washed from the sins of our former blindness, 
we are liberated to life eternal;”’ in which we “as fish are born, 
after the pattern of our Ἰχθὺς, Jesus Christ.” ® In the Lord’s Sup- 
per he speaks of feeding on the Body and Blood of Christ, that 
our soul may be fattened of God.® ‘These are all writers of the 
first century from the Apostles. 

It would keep us needlessly long, if we were to go through all 
the writers of the early ages. It may fairly be said, that with one 
voice they proclaim their belief that great spiritual blessings are 
to be obtained, by all faithful recipients, both in baptism and in 
the Supper of the Lord. The grace of the former they call remis- 
sion of sins, regeneration, illumination ;7 the grace of the latter 
they call the Body and Blood of Christ. In both they looked to 
receive Christ ; in both they hoped for pardon of sins, and the pres- 
ence of the Spirit of God. The full meaning of these phrases we 
shall have to consider in the following articles. Let it suffice here 
to refer to the pregnant words of St. Augustine, in which he con- 
trasts the Sacraments or ordinances of the Law with those of the 
Gospel; a change having been made, by which the Sacraments 
have become “ easier, fewer, more healthful.” ‘The Sacraments 
of the new Testament,” he says, give salvation, whereas those of 
the old Testament only promised a Saviour.”® Here we have the 
view of evangelical Sacraments which pervades all Christian antiq- 
uity, namely, that they differ from the ordinances of the old Law in 
this ; the ordinances of the old Law were but pledges of future bless- 


1 Epistol, Barnab. c. 12. letters of our Lord’s Name and titles, 
2 Apol. τ. p. 98. Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς Θεοῦ Ὑἱὸς Σωτὴρ. 
3 Thid. p. 97. 6 De Resurr. Carnis, c. 8. 
4 See Lib. 1. ὁ, 18; Lib. 111. c. 19; 7 φωτισμὸς. ---- See Suicer, s. ἢ. v. 
Lib. ν. ο. 2, &c. 8 “ Sacramenta N. Testamenti dant 


5 De Baptismo, ὁ. 1. ‘Nos pisciculi, salutem; Sacramenta V. ‘'Testamenti 
secundum ἐχϑὺν nostrum Jesum Chris- promiserunt Salvatorem.” — Enarr. in 
tum, in aqua nascimur.” Alluding to Ps. Ixxiii. § 2, Tom. rv. p. 769. 
the word 1XOY2 containing the initial 


600 OF THE SACRAMENTS. (Arr. XXV 


ings, not means to convey them, but the Sacraments of the Gospel 
not only promised Christ, but, to those who receive them in faith, . 
they are means whereby God gives Christ to the soul. 

We read, however, of some early heretics who denied the grace 
or the necessity of the Sacraments. Irenzus ascribes to some of 
the Gnostics the error of saying, that outward and material sacra- 
ments were unnecessary, so the soul were illuminated ;? an opin- 
ion consistent enough with the ultra-spiritualism of that sect, which 
made all excellence to consist in spiritual enlightenment, and es- 
teemed all matter to be evil and the source of sin. One of the 
errors for which St. Jerome attacked Jovinian, was, that he alto- 
gether separated baptism by the Spirit from baptism by water, say- 
ing that a man who had been baptized by the Spirit would never 
sin after, but that, if he sinned again, it was a proof that he had re- 
ceived only water-baptism, but not spiritual baptism.? The Man- 
ichees, like the Gnostics, and probably on the same principles, be- 
lieving baptism to have no efficacy, never administered it to their 
converts.2 The Messalians were a sect of mystics, who are de- 
scribed as devoting themselves wholly to prayer, and avoiding even 
labour for their bodily necessities. It appears that they had a 
very low esteem of the Sacraments, so that Theodoret accuses them 
of denying any efficacy whatever to baptism ;° though there is some 
reason to think that he has exaggerated their errors.’ It is prob- 
able enough that, wherever mysticism prevailed, such a disregard 
of external ordinances would prevail also. Those medieval sects 
which derived their errors from Gnostic or Manichean sources, 
would naturally underrate Sacraments, as having material elements, 
which such heretics regarded as essentially evil. Accordingly, we 
learn that the Paulicians in the ninth century refused to celebrate 
the Lord’s Supper, and probably in like manner rejected outward 
baptism.’ The Bulgarians and Albigenses are said to have sprung 
from the Paulicians ; and, though itis difficult to arrive at the truth 
concerning the tenets of these persecuted sects, we may yet prob- 
ably infer, that one of their errors was an underrating of the value 
of baptism and the Eucharist. 

The time, however, for these subjects to be most fiercely con- 


ἐμ ἐφ μον, 1. 6. 18, p. 91. Edit. Oxon. . Ἀ. Theodoret. Hearet. Fab. Lib. tv. ec. 


. 10. 
2 Hieronym. Adv. Jovinianum, Lib. u. ὃ. See Bingham, Ε΄. A. Bk. x1. ch. τι. 


Tom tv. pt. τι. p. 198. sect. 5. 
8 August. De Heres. c. 46; Bingham, ἷ See Mosheim, Ε. H. Cent, 1x. pt 
E. A. Bk. x1. ch. 11. sect. 4. τι. ch. v. Also Bingham, 2. A. Bk. xt 


4 Epiphan. Heres. txxx.; Augustin. ch. 11. sect, 4. 
Heres. ναι. 


Arr. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 601 


tested would naturally be the period of the Reformation. We mnst 
leave the discussion on Transubstantiation, which agitated the 
Church in the Middle Ages, for the Articles which treat expressly 
on the Lord’s Supper. Suffice it here to observe, that the school- 
authors, in their investigations concerning sacramental efficacy, 
were led, not merely to insist on the value of the Sacraments as 
means, in the use of which God’s Spirit works, but also to lay down 
the principle, that the Sacraments are so in their own nature vehi- 
cles of grace, that, ex opere operato, from the mere fact of their 
administration, they convey Christ to the soul. Such a reception 
of Christ may not indeed be always to salvation; nay, it may be to 
condemnation ; but still the Sacrament administered always brought 
with it a spiritual grace. This doctrine was fixed, as the doctrine 
of the Roman Church, by the decrees of the Council of Trent. 
They anathematized all, who deny that the Sacraments contain 
grace,! or that this grace is conferred by them ex opere operato.? 

All the reformed, whatever differences may have existed between 
them on these subjects (and such differences were sufficiently great), 
appear to have much objected to the statement of the opus operatum. 
To them such a statement seemed to imply, not that Sacraments 
were means through which God was pleased to work, and which 
He had promised to bless, but rather, that they were of the na- 
ture of magical incantations, which, however carelessly adminis- 
tered, could not be separated from their effects upon the soul. 
The very elements therefore became the objects of adoration. 
The water of baptism was in itself holy and the source of holi- 
ness ; the consecrated wafer was the Body of the Son of God. 
Extremes generate extremes: and we learn that the anabaptists 
and other fanatics were led to such extravagance of opposition to 
the extravagance of Romanism, as impiously to mock the blessed 
Sacrament of the Eucharist; so that “ railing bills against it were 
fixed upon the doors of St. Paul’s Cathedral and other places, term- 
ing it Jackin a box, The Sacrament of the halter, Round Robin, and 
such like irreverent terms.” 8 

Among the continental reformers, Zuinglius, Iuther, and Calvin, 
adopted three different views of the Sacraments. 

Zuinglius rejected sacramental grace entirely. He held Sacra- 
ments to be bare signs, outward tokens of Christian profession, but 

1 Sess. vir. Can. vi. ‘‘Siquisdixerit, erit per ipsa nove legis sacramenta ex 
sacramenta nove legis non continere opere operato non conferri gratiam.... 
gratiam, quam significant.... anathema anathema sit.” 
sit.” 8 Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 216, re 


2 Sess. vii. Can. vir. “Si quis dix- ferred to by Dr. Hey on this Article. 
76 


602 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Arr. XXV 
in no sense means of grace. He defined a Sacrament to be “an 
external symbol, by which we testify what we are, and what is our 
duty, just as one who bears a national costume or badge testifies 
that he belongs to a particular nation or society.”1 And again, 
‘© A Sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing; when therefore I 
speak of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body, I mean no more than that 
bread which is the figure and type of Christ's Body.” ? 

Luther, on the contrary, maintained the great importance 
and spiritual efficacy of the Sacraments. ‘* We can lay it down as 
a rule,” he writes, “that where are the Eucharist, Baptism, the 
Word, there is Christ, remission of sins, and life eternal.” * In the 
Eucharist, it is well known that he believed that, with the conse- 
crated bread and wine, there are delivered to the recipient the very 
Body and Blood of Christ ; the elements not being transubstan+ 
tiated, but the Body of Christ being consubstantially united with 
them.* Of the other Sacrament he taught, that, as man is bora 
naturally full of sins, so in baptism he is born spiritually, regener- 
ated, justified. His sins are buried there, and righteousness rises 
instead of sins. “St. Paul,” says he, “ teaches that baptism is nota 
sign, but a clothing in Christ, yea, that Christ Himself is our eloth- 
ing. Wherefore baptism is a most potent and efficacious rite.” δ 

Calvin took a kind of mean between Luther and Zuinglius. 
Concerning Sacraments in general, he writes, that ‘* though they 
are figures, yet not naked and empty figures, but having their truth 
and substance united to them; not only representing, but offer- 
ing grace. We ought never to separate the substance of the Sac- 
raments from the Sacraments themselves. We ought not indeed 
to confound them, but to rend them asunder is absurd.”? The 


1 “ Sacramentum quid] Sacramentum 
ergo ....symbolum externum, quo 
quales simus, et quodnam sit officium 
testamur, significat. Ut enim, qui cru- 
cem gestat albam, sese Helvetum esse, 
et posthac semper fore testatur,” &¢. — 
De Baptismo, Zuinglii Opera, 1581, Tom. 
1. fol. 60. 

2 « Sacramentum quid] Sacramentum 
est sacre rei signum. Cum ergo Sacra- 
mentum Corporis Christi nomino, non 
quicquam aliud, quam panem, qui Cor- 
poris Christi pro nobis mortui figura et 
typus est, intelligo.”” — De Cana Domini, 
ea Tom. 1. folio 274. 
ae: In Genesin. c. αν. Opera, Tom. vr. fol. 


* Of this more under Art. xxvii. 
Meanwhile, see his treatise De Sacra- 
mento Aliaris, Tom. 1. fol. 78; Catechis- 
mus Major, Tom. v. p. 640. 


5 “Quemadmodum enim mater illo 
earnali partu plenum peccatis puerum et 
ire filium edit, ita baptismus edit spiritu- 
alem partum, et regenerat nos, ut justi- 
ficati simus filii gratie. Sic peccata in 
baptismo demerguntur, et emergit pro 
peccatis justitia.”— De Sacramento 
tismi, Tom, 1. fol. 72 

6 “ Docet ergo Paulus baptismum non 
signum, sed indumentum Christi, immo 
ipsum Christum indumentum nostrum 
esse. Quare baptismus potentissima ac 
efficacissima res est.” — In 111. cap. Ad 
Galat. Tom. vy. fol. 370. 

7 “Figuris igitur et signis, que sub o¢- 
ulorum sensum cadunt, ut nature nos- 
tre imbecillitas requirit, ostenditur: ita 
tamen ut non sit figura nuda et simplex, 
sed veritati ἐμὴ et ae 
tur... . Sed hoc adjungemus, Sa 
menta Domini nullo modo a substantia 


Arr. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 608 
word is joined to the external sign, and hence Sacraments have 
their efficacy . . . . Christ breathed on His Apostles, and they 
received, not His breathing only, but the Spirit of God. Where- 
fore ? but because Christ had promised? ‘So in baptism we put on 
Christ, we are washed in His Blood, our old man is crucified, that 
the righteousness of God may reign in us. In the sacred Supper 
we are fed spiritually by the Body and Blood of Christ. "Whence | 
so great effects, but from the promise of Christ, who effects and 
makes good by His Spirit what He testifies by His Word?”! In 
regard to the grace received by infants in baptism, it is probable, 
as we shall see hereafter, that Calvin’s predestinarian theory mate- 
rially influenced his views. But as regards adult recipients both 
of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, he clearly taught, that to the 
faithful God gives, in the one remission and regeneration, in the 
other, the real but spiritual presence of Christ’s Body and Blood. 
On the question of the Eucharist especially he differed from the Ro- 
manists, in that he rejected transubstantiation, — from the Luther- 
ans, in that he rejected consubstantiation, — from the Zuinglians, in 
that he maintained a real presence of Christ, though he held that 
presence to be spiritual, not carnal? 

The Calvinistic communions, including the English Puritans and 
Non-Conformists, have generally followed Zuinglius rather than 
Calvin in their Sacramental theory; though by no means agree- 
ing with the former on many other points of theology. 

The Anglican reformers have sometimes been charged with 
Zuinglian sentiments concerning the .Eucharist. On this subject, 
however, it is capable of evident proof, that they symbolized, not 
with Zuinglius, but with Calvin, though not deriving their views 
from him. On baptism their language is stronger, not only than 


et veritate sua separari oportere. Ea qui- in nobis Dei justitia. In sacra Cona 


dem ne confundantur, distinguere non 
tantum convenit, sed etiam omnino ne- 
cessarium est. Sed ita dividere ut alte- 
rum sine altero constituatur, absurdissi- 
mum.”’— De Cena Domini, Calvini Opus- 
cula, pp. 188, 184. 

1 “ Observent lectores externo et visib- 
ili symbolo simul verbum conjungi, nam 
et hinc sacramenta vim suam mutuantur: 
non quod in voce, que auribus personat, 
inclusa sit Spiritus efficacia ; sed quia a 
testimonio Verbi pendet eorum omnium 
effectus, que ex sacramentis percipiunt 
fideles. Flat Christus in Apostolos: hi 
non flatum modo sed Spiritum quoque 
recipiunt. Cur? nisi quia illis Christus 
promittit? Similiter in Baptismo Chris- 
tum induimus, abluimur Ejus sanguine, 
crucifigitur vetus homo noster, ut regnet 


spiritualiter Christi carne et sanguine 
pascimur. Unde tanta vis, nisi ex Christi 
promissione, qui Spiritu Suo efficit ac 
preestat quod verbo testatur.” — Calvinus 
In Evangelium Johannis, ο. xx. ¥. 22. 

2 “Necesse est igitur nos in Coena vere 
Corpus et sanguinem Christi recipere 

- quemadmodum panis in manu dis- 

tribuitar, ita Corpus Christi, ut Ejus 
participes simus, nobis communicari.” — 
De Cena Domini Opuseula, p, 134. 

“Ceterum hoc imprimis tenendum, ut 
carnalis omnis imaginatio excludatur, ani- 
mum oportere sursum in ccelos erigere, 
ne existimemus Dominum nostrum Je- 
sum Christum eo dejectum esse ut in 
elementis corruptilibus concludatur.” — 
Ibid. p. 147. 


604 OF THE SACRAMENTS. (Arr. XXV. 


Calvin’s, but even than Luther’s. But of their views concerning 
these two Sacraments separately, we must reserve the considera- 
tion for the present. Meanwhile, let us observe a few of their 
statements on Sacraments in general. 

We have already noticed their language in this XX Vth Article, 
that Sacraments are “ effectual signs of grace, by the which God 
doth work invisibly in us.” We have compared the language of 
the Homily, in which Sacraments are defined to be “ visible signs 
expressly commanded in the new Testament, whereunto is an- 
nexed the promise of free forgiveness of sins, and of our holiness 
and joining in Christ.” ._We have seen that the Catechism uses 
terms of the same significance, calling Sacraments “ outward and 
visible signs of inward and spiritual grace,” which grace is not 
merely promised, but “given unto us;” saying also that they 
were “ordained by Christ Himself” to be, not only ‘a pledge to 
assure us’’ of that grace, but also “a means whereby we receive 
the same.” 

In like manner Nowell’s Catechism, a semi-authoritative docu- 
ment, has the following: “‘ How many Sacraments hath God or- 
dained in His Church? A. Two: Baptism, and the Holy Supper, 
which are commonly used among the faithful. For by the one we 
are born again, and by the other we are nourished to everlasting 
life.” 1 Jewel’s. Apology, a similar authority, having denied the 
Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, adds: “ But when we say 
this, we lower not the nature of the Lord’s Supper, nor teach it to 
be a mere frigid ceremony, and that in it nothing is done, as some 
calumniously say that. we teach. For we assert, that Christ truly 
exhibits Himself present with us in His Sacraments; in baptism, 
that we may put Him on; in the Supper, that we may feed on 
Him by faith and in Spirit, and from His Cross and Blood have 
everlasting life: and this we assert to be done, not coldly and per- 
functorily, but in very deed and truth.”* The Reformatio Legum 
again condemns those who would take the Sacraments “ for naked 
signs and external marks, whereby the religion of Christian men 
may be discerned from others.” * And to refer once more to the 
Homilies, “The sermon for repairing and keeping clean the 
churches” speaks of the house of God as that “ wherein be minis- 
tered the Sacraments and mysteries of our redemption. The foun- 
tain of our regeneration is there presented to us; the partaking 
of the Body and Blood of Christ is there offered unto us; and 


1 See the Enchiridion Theologicum,1.pp. _ * ‘Pro nudis signis et externis tantum. 
818, 814. indiciis.” — Reformatio Lequm, De Heeresi- 
2 Enchiridion Theolog. 1. p. 129. bus, c. 17, quoted by Hey. 


Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 605 


shall we not esteem the place where so heavenly things are 
handled?” 

It may seem needless to add private testimonies of the individual 
reformers. Yet the names of Cranmer and Ridley stand justly so 
much at the head of our Reformation that we may well hear one 
word from each of them. Cranmer, in his Answer to Gardiner, 
writes ‘ Likewise when he (the minister) ministereth to our sight 
Christ’s holy Sacraments, we must think Christ crucified and pre- 
sented before our eyes, because the Sacraments so represent Him, 
and be His Sacraments, not the priest’s. As in baptism we must 
think that, as the priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and 
washeth him with water, so must we think that God putteth to His 
hand inwardly and washeth the infant with His Holy Spirit, and, 
moreover, that Christ cometh down upon the child and apparelleth 
him with His own Self. And as at the Lord’s holy table, the priest 
distributeth wine and bread to feed the body, so must we think that 
inwardly by faith we see Christ feeding both body and soul to eter- 
nal life.””! «Τὴ all ages,” says Ridley, ‘ the devil hath stirred up 
some light heads to esteem the Sacraments but lightly, as to be 
empty and bare signs.”? “And as all do agree hitherto in the 
aforesaid doctrine, so all do detest, abhor, and condemn the wicked 
heresy of the Messalonians, which otherwise be called Euchites, 
which said that the holy Sacrament can do neither good nor harm ; 
and do also condemn those wicked anabaptists, which put no dif- 
ference between the Lord’s table and the Lord’s meat and their 
own.” ὃ 

It is not necessary to pursue the history of this subject to more 
modern times. The Quakers, and some other sects, have not only 
undervalued Sacramental grace, but actually have rejected all use 
of the Sacraments. The foreign Protestants, with the exception 
of the Lutherans, seem mostly to adopt Zuinglian opinions; as 
have the generality of dissenters among ourselves. In the English 
Church, those who have formed their theological views for the 
most part on the Puritan model, have taken in general low ground 
on the Sacraments, especially on the Sacrament of baptism, whilst 
the opposite school have zealously maintained the reality and im- 
portance of Sacramental grace. The period of Bishop Hoadley 
and the Bangorian controversy has been pointed to as an era from 
which lower sacramental doctrines have been very commonly 
admitted among churchmen. In the present day it is painfully 


1 Cranmer’s Works, by Jenkyns, 111. 2 Works, Parker Society, p. 114. 
pp. 553, 554. 3 Ridley’s Works, Parker Society, p. 9. 


606 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Apr XXY. 


_ known to every one with what fierceness the flame of discord’ has 
burst forth, on the subject of those very ordinances of grace which 
were instituted by Chyist on purpose to bind together in one fold 
and one flock the blessed company of all true believers. 


III. Concerning the proper use of the Sacraments, the Article 
says, — 

‘“‘ The Sacraments: were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon 
or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.” This 
sentence alludes to the elevation and procession of the host in the 
Church of Rome ; and, as a similar statement is made, with more 
direct reference to those customs, in Article XXVIII. we may 
reserve the consideration of the question for the present. Thus 
much only we may remark, that the Tridentine definition, that 
“the grace of the Sacraments is contained in the Sacraments,” 
naturally led to the adoration of the elements themselves: whereas 
the doctrine that Sacraments have no efficacy of their own nature, 
but are ordinances of God, which He is pleased to honour, and by 
which He has promised. to work, will lead to a reverent esteem 
and diligent use of them, but not to a superstitious veneration of 
the mere instruments. ‘This is the difference between Rome and 


England. 


IV. The last. question treated of is the worthy reception of 
the Sacraments. 

“In such only as worthily receive the same, have they a whole- 
some effect or operation ; but they that receive them unworthily, 
purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.” 

This statement also is virtually repeated concerning baptism in 
Art. XX VII. and still more clearly concerning the Eucharist in 
Art, XXIX. 

Highly as, the fathers speak, and often with no expressed 
reservation or restriction, concerning sacramental grace and the 
potency of the Sacraments, yet, when occasion offers, we may 
always observe that they did not so tie the grace to the ordinance 
as to believe that the impenitent and the unbelieving would benefit 
by it. Origen, though plainly speaking of remission of sins. and 
the gift of God’s Spirit as the grace of baptism, yet observes that 
all are not Israel that are of Israel; nor are all baptized. with the 
Spirit who are baptized. with water . ... . Some who, lave re- 
ceived baptism have been unworthy to receive the Holy Spirit. 
Simon had received baptism, but as he came with hypoerisy for 


Arr. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 607 


grace, h2 was rejected from the gift of the Spirit.””} Again, he says 
that all persons washed with water were not washed to salvation. 
It was so with Simon Magus. And, accordingly, he urges on 
catechumens to prepare themselves, diligently for baptism, lest, they. 
receive the water only, not the Spirit of God. ‘“* He who is bap- 
tized to salvation receives water and the Holy Spirit; but Simon, 
not being baptized to salvation, received water, but not the Spirit 
of God.” 2 

Tertullian says, he denies not that the pardon of sins is assured 
to those who are baptized, but yet he says, we ought to labour 
that we attain that blessing. God suffers not the unworthy to 
come to His treasures. ‘‘ Some,” he remarks, ‘think that God 
must make good His promises, even to. the unworthy, and would 
make. His liberality a slavish obligation.” But Tertullian himself 
plainly indicates his belief, that baptism to such unworthy re- 
cipients. would not be the fountain of life, but rather symbolwm 
mortis, the mark of death.® 

Just in the same spirit, St. Cyril in the preface to his Cate- 
chetical Lectures; in which, though he speaks very excellent things 
of the blessings of baptism. and Communion, yet. he warns against 
unworthy approach to them, and diligently prepares his catechu- 
mens for worthy reception of them. He begins by propounding 
to them the sad example of Simon Magus. ‘Simon Magus,” says 
he, “of old came to the laver. He was baptized, but: not illu- 
minated. He washed his body with the water, but enlightened 
not his heart with the Spirit. His body descended and rose up 
again, but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised again 
with Him.” * He then goes on to speak of the man without 
the wedding, garment, and to bid them beware of such. con- 
duct as his. He tells them, they have full time for preparation. 
“Tf,” he adds, ‘thou remainest in evil purpose, he who warns 
thee will be blameless, but, look, not. thou, to receive grace. The 
water will receive thee, but the Spirit will not receive thee.’”® 

Just so St. Augustine: ‘All the Sacraments are common, but 
not the grace of the Sacraments to all... . The laver of regener- 
ation is common to all baptized in the name of the Trinity; but 
the grace of baptism is not common to all. For heretics, and 
false brethren in the Catholic Church, have the same baptism.” ® 
“The Sacrament. is one thing, the grace of the Sacrament another. 

1 In Numeros, Homil, ται. num. 1. 3 De Penitentia, c. 6. 

2 In Ezekiel, Hom. v1. num. 5. See Ἅ Cyril. Hierosol. Preefatio Cateches, τ. 


Lumper De Vita et. Seriptis Origenis, Art. 55. Ibid. 111. 
XIII. 6 In Ps. 77, Tom, αν. pp. 816, 817. 


608 OF THE SACRAMENTS. 


How many eat of the altar, and die, aye! and die by eating. 
Wherefore saith the Apostle, He eateth and drinketh condemna- 
tion to himself.””! ‘If, therefore, thou wilt know that thou hast 
received the Spirit, ask thine own heart, lest perchance thou hast 
the Sacrament, but not the virtue of the Sacrament.” 2 

The Scholastic disputes concerning the grace of the Sacraments 
originated the theory of the opus operatum. The Sacraments were 
thought to be so completely vehicles of grace that they themselves 
contained and conveyed the grace which was proper to them. 
Thus the elements in the Eucharist were believed to be changed 
into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood; and by whom- 
soever the bread and wine were received, by the same the Body 
and Blood of Christ were eaten and drunk. To the unworthy 
indeed the reception was not to salvation, but to condemnation ; 
yet still it was a real receiving, not only of the Sacrament, but 
also of the grace of the Sacrament. So Simon Magus was be- 
lieved to have received, not only baptism, but the grace of baptism, 
yet not to life, but to death. He was said to have been regener- 
ated by baptism, but regenerate to a greater condemnation. The 
fathers’ expressions were made to bear this meaning, when they 
speak in glowing terms of the blessings to be expected in the re- 
ception of the sacraments. But a hundred such strong statements 
can never be fairly alleged against a single sentence occurring in 
qualification or explanation of them. How often soever it be said 
that baptism is regeneration, and the Eucharist a feeding upon 
Christ’s Body and Blood ; a single statement, that this is true only 
of worthy recipients, is sufficient to prove that such a qualification 
is always to be understood. 

The Roman Church, however, has adopted the theory of the 
opus operatum, and stamped it with synodal authority. Yet in the 


(Arr. XXV. 


1 In Johann. cap. 6, Tract xxv1. Tom. vit et Saul malus rex,” &c. 8. Augus- 


III. pars. 11. p. 498, ο. 

3. 7ὴ Epi Johann. cap. tv. Tract v1. 
Tom. 111. pars 11. Ὁ. 868, ἢ, ears 
p- 840, c. See also De Civitate Dei, Lib. 
xxi. cap. 25. Tom. vit. p. 445, seq. 

ὃ Thus St. Augustine is supposed to 
have asserted, that Simon Magus re- 
ceived the Holy Ghostin baptism. He is 
speaking of the many gifts which a man 
may receive, and yet lack charity; he 
continues, “Respice ad munera ipsius 
Ecclesia. |Munus sacramentorum in 
baptismo, in eucharistia, in ceteris sanc- 
tis sacramentis ; quale munus est? Hoc 
munus adeptus est et Simon Magus. 
Prophetia quale munus est? Propheta- 


tin. In Ps. ciii. Serm. 1.9. Tom. ry. p, 
1186. It does not appear to me that any- 
thing in this passage is inconsistent with 
a belief that the grace of the Sacrament 
may be withheld from the impenitent. 
At all events, such a vague statement 
can never be pressed against such posi- 
tive statements as those given above 
from the same father. In one passage 
indeed he leaves it as a kind of open 
question, whether Simon Magus was 
regenerated to greater condemnation, or 
whether he was born of water, but not 
of the Spirit. He seems to incline to 
the latter alternative. — De Baptismo 6. 
Donatist. Lib. v1. c. 12. Tom, rx. p. 169. 


ΘΝ ae Se ae ee 


Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 609 


very canon which asserts that the Sacraments contain grace, it is 
added, that “ they confer grace on those who do not place a δαγ.᾽ 

If it were not added soon after? that the “Sacraments confer 
grace, ex opere operato,” we might believe that the Tridentine 
fathers did not materially differ from the statements of our own 
reformers ; to place a bar being much the same as to receive un- 
worthily. 

The reformers all strongly opposed the doctrine of the opus oper- 
atum. 

The Lutherans, who of all the reformed bodies were considered 
to hold the highest view of the Sacraments, yet plainly rejected 
the belief that grace was inseparably tied to the reception of 
them. Luther complains, that the schoolmen and the papists 
dreamed of virtue infused into the water of baptism ; but he held 
the gift of the Spirit to the baptized to result from the promise of 
God to them, but that the water was still but water.2 So, though 
by the doctrine of consubstantiation Christ’s very Body would be 
received with the bread, yet, as the bread is not said to be changed 
into Christ’s Body, it is possible that by the unworthy the bread 
alone might be eaten, but the Body and Blood might not be com- 
municated In this, as in many respects, consubstantiation is 
much different from transubstantiation ; since, according to the 
latter, the substance of the bread and wine is utterly annihilated, 
and nothing remains but the substance of the Body and Blood, so 
that all who receive the Sacrament, must receive by it the very 
substance of Christ. 

It is unnecessary, for the present, to say more concerning our 
own reformers’ views of this subject ; they are plainly expressed in 
this and the following Articles; and we shall hear more of them 
under Art. XX VII. and XXVIII. 


1 Concil. Trident. Sess. vil. can. vi. 2 Ibid. Canon vit. 
“Si quis dixerit sacramenta nove legis 8 See Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, 
non continere gratiam, quam significant, Note on Sermon vit. pp. 157, 158. 
aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus obicem 
non conferre, anathema sit.” 


17 


ARTICLE XXVI. 


----- 


Uf the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which 
hinders not the effect of the Sucrament. 


ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the 
evil be ever mingled with the good, and 
sometimes the evil have chief authority 
in the Ministration of the Word and Sac- 
raments, yet forasmuch as they do not the 
same in their own name, but in Christ’s, 
and do minister by His commission and 
authority, we may use their ministry, 
both in hearing the Word of God, and in 
receiving of the Sacraments. Neither 
is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken 
away by their wickedness, nor the grace 
of God’s gifts diminished from such as 
by faith and rightly do receive the Sac- 
raments ministered unto them ; which be 
effectual, because of Christ’s institution 
and promise, although they be ministered 
by evil men. 

- Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the dis- 
cipline of the Church, that inquiry be 
made of evil Ministers, and that they be 
accused by those that have knowledge 
of their offences ; and finally being found 
guilty, by just judgment be deposed. 


De vi Institutionum Divinarum, quod eam 
non tollat malitia Ministrorum. 


QuaMvis in ecclesia visibili, bonis mali 
semper sunt admixti, atque interdum 
ministerio verbi et sacramentorum pra- 
sint, tamen cum non suo, sed Christi nom- 
ine agant, ejusque mandato et auctoritate 
ministrent, illorum ministerio uti licet, 
cum in verbo Dei audiendo, tum in sacra- 
mentis percipiendis. Neque per illoram 
malitiam effectus institutorum Christi 
tollitur, aut gratia donorum Dei minui- 
tur, quoad eos qui fide et rite sibi oblata 
percipiunt, que propter institutionem 
Christi et promissionem efficacia sunt, 
licet per malos administrentur. 

Ad Ecclesiz tamen disciplinam per- 
tinet, ut in malos ministros inquiratur, 
accusenturque ab his, qui eorum flagitia 
noverint, atque tandem justo convicti 
judicio deponantur. 





Szcrion I.— HISTORY. 


i be is natural, in treating of the doctrines contained in this Article, 

* to begin with the question concerning heretical baptism, which 
agitated the primitive Church. Tertullian denies that the heretics 
administered Christian baptism at all, because they did not believe 
in the same God nor the same Christ with the Christians. Hence 
the rebaptizing of heretics was not, according to him, a repetition 
of the one baptism ; for their former baptism was, strictly speaking, 
not Christian baptism at all, being baptism into a different faith 
from that of the Gospel.1_ The same rule seems to be laid down 
by the Apostolical Canons, the 46th canon commanding the 
deposition of any “ bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who admitted 


1 Tertull. De Baptismo, ο. 16. 


ΡΥ ΨΥ, Sa eee ee τ ee eee ee ee ΝΕ es LT oe a mL ΤΩ ὩΣ 


Sec. 1. OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. 611 


the baptism or sacrifice of heretics’ (comp. canons 47, 68). In 
the famous dispute between Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian, 
Bishop of Carthage, the latter, and the African bishops who 
were with him, denied the validity of baptism by heretics and 
schismatics also. The baptism of heretics, Cyprian, like Tertullian, 
held to be baptism into another religion than the Gospel, into the 
faith of another God than the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
Hence, he concluded that such baptism must be void.! But, 
moreover, the baptism of schismatics appears to have been rejected 
by the African bishops ; because according to the interrogation in 
baptism, (‘* Dost thou believe in the life eternal, and remission of. 
sins in the Holy Church ?’’) they held that remission of sins could 
not be given but in the Church.? 

Stephen, Bishop of Rome, took the directly opposite view, ad- 
mitting all baptism, whether by schismatics or heretics, so it was 
with water in the name of the Trinity ; and such has been the rule 
of the Latin Church ever since. The Greek Church has taken 
a middle course, rejecting heretical, but admitting schismatical bap- 
tism. 

This was quite a different question from that on which this 
Article is treating. But, in the controversy, the African Church 
used language as if they thought that one reason why heretics 
could not administer baptism aright, was because they themselves 
had not the grace of baptism, and so could not bestow it on others. 
“What prayer,” they ask, ‘‘ can a sacrilegious and impious priest 
offer? As it is written, God heareth not sinners; but who wor- 
ships Him and doth His will, him He heareth. And who can 
give what he hath not? or how can a person perform spiritual 
offices, who hath himself lost the Holy Spirit?”’? Such a state- 
ment, which must be considered as obiter dictum, was perhaps 
naturally put forth as one among other arguments, without. having 
been maturely weighed or traced out to all its consequences. 
When, however, in the fourth century, arose the famous schism of 
the Donatists, more was made of it than might at first have been 
intended. The Synodical letter in which that statement is made 
was addressed to certain bishops of the Numidians. Now the 
Donatist faction arose among the Numidians. It originated in an 
opposition to the election of Cecilianus into the see of Carthage. 
His opponents, the Numidian bishops, accused his wpapscrife'= > 


1 Cyprian, Epist. 18, Jubaiano Fratri, de Rebaptizandis Hereticis in E pistol. ὧν». 
p. 208. riani, Epist. 10, p. 190. 
3 Epistola Synodica Numidis Episcopis, ὃ Ibid. p- 191. 


612 OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. [Arr. XXVI. 


Felix, of being a traditor (7. 6. one who in Diocletian’s perseention 
had delivered up the sacred writings to the heathen magistrates to 
be burned) ; and hence they denied that his consecration was valid ; 
for a bishop in deadly sin could not confer the grace of ordination.' 
The length to which this controversy went, was very great. The 
Donatists (as they were called from their chief leader Donatus) 
became a large and influential sect, having no fewer than 400 
bishops of their own. They refused all communion with the 
African Church, of which Cecilianus was the chief bishop, and 
even rebaptized those who came over to their own faction. They 
naturally referred to the authority of Cyprian and his contemporary 
bishops, and made the most of their statements concerning the 
invalidity of heretical baptism. 

The controversy which thus arose, hinged much on the ques- 
tion with which we have now to deal. The Donatist writers 
(Petilianus, Parmenianus, Cresconius) appear to have maintained 
the invalidity of the acts of those ministers who were in deadly 
sin; and seemed almost to deny the position, that a true church 
can contain ‘the evil mingled with the good.” Augustine and 
Optatus were their chief opponents ; and some of the most valuable 
treatises of the former were called forth by this dispute. 

Augustine lays it down asa rule, that ministers do not confer 
remission of sins, or the grace of the Sacraments, but that the 
Holy Spirit confers them through their ministry.2_ The remission 
of sins is given by virtue of the Sacraments, not by the merit of 
him who ministers them.®? “It matters not to the integrity of 
baptism, how much the worse he is who ministers it. For there is 
not so much difference between the bad and the worse, as between 
the good and the bad. Yet when a bad man baptizes, he gives no 
other thing than a good man gives.”* Still he seems to agree in 
gome measure with Cyprian; for he says that heretical baptism, 
although it be real baptism, yet tends not to salvation, but to 
destruction.® 

St. Chrysostom bears a like testimony in the Greek Church, at 
the same time. “It is not just,” he writes, ‘that those who 
approach by faith should receive hurt from the symbols of our sal- 


1 See the History of the Donatists, 4 “ Nihil interest ad integritatem bap- 


Mosheim, Cent. rv. pt. 11. ch. v. tismi, quanto pejor id tradat. Neque 

? “ Satis ostenditur non ipsosidagere, enim tantum interest inter malum et pe- 
sed per eos utique Spiritum Sanctum.”— jorem, quantum interest inter bonum et 
Contra Epistolum Parmeniani, Lib. τὰ. ¢. malum: et tamen cum baptizat malus, 
11, Tom. rx. p. 41. non aliud dat quam bonus.”’ — Lib 


* De Baptismo contra Donatistas, Lib. v1. c. 24, p. 174, f. 
tv. c. 4, Tom. 1x. p. 124, a. δ Ibid. Lib. v. c. 22, p. 156, ὃ. 


OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. 


Sec. 17 613 


vation through the wickedness of another.”? So again, " God uses 
to work even by unworthy persons, and in no respect is the grace 
of baptism injured by the life of the priest.” ? 

Isidore of Pelusium is very clear to the same effect: “If a 
wicked man approaches the altar and unholily handles sacred things, 
he shall bear his punishment, but the altar receives no contamina- 
tion.” ? “He that is baptized receives no damage from the sym- 
bols of salvation, if the priest be not a good. liver.” ἢ 

There can be no greater obstacle to the progress of religion 
than inconsistency in its professors, and especially in its ministers. 
The earnest and enthusiastic naturally sigh for a state of things 
which shall be free from all such blemishes, and picture to them- 
selves a Church, the members of which shall be all sincere, and its 
ministers holy. They ill endure that the tares shall grow up with 
the wheat until the harvest. The Montanists, the Cathari, and 
later, the Anabaptists, were of this spirit. In the Middle Ages the 
ill-living of the lower class of friars appears to have been a great 
cause of scandal to the laity, and a principal ground for the cry of 
reformation. We know that Wickliffe and his followers inveighed 
loudly against such corruption; and it is probable enough that 
much was said at that period concerning the damage that might 
occur from the ministrations of ungodly men. The council of 
Constance (Sess. vir.) condemned the errors of Wickliffe, con- 
tained in forty-five propositions ; the fourth of which imputes to 
him the doctrine that “‘a bishop or priest in mortal sin cannot 
ordain, baptize, or consecrate.” The Council of Trent (Sess. x1v. 
De Penit. cap. 6) decrees, in like manner, that those are in error 
who contend that the power of absolution is lost by wicked priests ; 
. for they exercise this power as Christ’s ministers and by virtue of 
their ordination. 

Whatever may have been the popular feeling on this subject 
among the advocates of reformation in general, there is no 
doubt that the Anabaptists (in conformity with their general 
principle, that the whole Church should be pure and sincere) 5 


1 Οὐ δίκαιον ἣν διὰ τὴν ἑτέρου κακίαν 
εἰς τὰ σύμβολα τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν τοὺς 
πίστει προσίοντας παραβλάπτεσϑαι. ---- Ho- 
mil, ΤΧΧΧΥῚ. in Johannem. See Suicer, 
Tom. 11. p. 383. 

2 νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δι’ ἀναξίων ἐνεργεῖν ὁ Θεὸς 
εἴωϑε, καὶ οὐδὲν τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἡ χάρις 
παρὰ τοῦ βίου τοῦ ἱέρεως παραβλάπτεται. 
— Homil. viit. inrad Corinth. This pas- 
sage is quoted by Bp. Beveridge on this 
Article. ν 


8 Isidor. Pelus. Epist. 240, Lib. rr. ; 
Suicer, uli supra. 

* 6 τελούμενος οὐδὲν παραβλάπτεται εἰς τὰ 
σωτηριωδὴ σύμβολα, εἰ ὁ ἱερεὺς μὴ εὖ βιοὺς 
εἴη, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς μὲν παντώς. ---- Epist. 817, 
Lib. 11. Suic. 11. 1088. 

5 Mosheim says, they taught that 
“the Church of Christ ought to be exempt 
from all sin.” — Cent. xvi. sect. 111. pt. 
11. §§ 5, 17. 


' 614 OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. [Arr. XXVL 


“held the impropriety of receiving Sacraments from ungodly min- 
-isters.} 

The foreign reformers, however, like the English, rejected these 
notions of the necessity of personal holiness in the minister to the 
validity of his ministrations. The VIIIth Article of the Confes- 
sion of Augsburg is the original of this XXVIth Article of our 
Church. It was a little modified in the Vth of the Articles agreed 
on between the Anglicans and Lutherans in 1538, which contains 
a paragraph nearly word for word the same as the former part of 
our present Article. The Article stands now exactly as it did in 
1552.” 

It has been thought that, besides what we have been considering, 
‘the Roman Catholic doctrine of “ Intention” may have been aimed 
‘at. This, however, does not appear probable. The Lutheran 

Article especially mentions “ The Donatists and others like them ;” 
and the state of the Church at the time of the Reformation, the 
disaffection of the laity to the clergy, the scandals said to exist in 
the lesser monasteries, the irregular lives of the mendicant friars, 
the ignorance of some among the reformed clergy, the springing 
up of Anabaptist sentiments, — all these things sufficiently point out 
a reason and necessity for such an Article as the present. The 
‘Roman doctrine of Intention is indeed of most ‘desperate conse- 


1 See Leformatio Legum de Heeresibus, c. 15, which is cited by Hey. 
2 Confession of Augsburg. 


Art. VIII. 


A. D. 15381. 
εν Quanguam Ecclesia proprie sit congre- 
gatio sanctorum et vere credentium ; 
‘tamen cum in hac vita multi hypocrite 
et mali admixti sint, licet uti sacramentis 
que per malos administrantur, juxta vo- 
cem Christi, ‘‘sedent Scribe et Pharisai 
in Cathedra Mosis,” &c. Et sacramenta 
et verbum propter ordinationem et man- 
‘datum Christi sunt efficacia, etiamsi per 
, malos exhibeantur. 

Damnant Donatistas et similes, qui 
᾿ megabant licere uti ministerio malorum 
in ecclesia, et sentiebant ministerium 

malorum inutile et inefficax esse. 


A. D. 1540. 

Cum autem in hac vita admixti sint Ec- 
clesiz# multi mali et hypocrite, qui tamen 
societatem habent externorum signorum 
cum ecclesia, licet uti sacramentis, que 
per malos administrantur, juxta vocem 
Christi, &c. 


Portion of the Vth Article of 1538. 


“Et quamvis in Ecclesia secundum 
‘\posteriorem acceptionem mali sint bonis 
admixti, atque etiam ministeriis verbi et 

‘ gacramentorum nonnunquam preesint ; ta- 
'!men cum ministrent non suo, sed Christi, 
nomine, mandato et auctoritate, licet 
eorum ministerio uti, tam in verbo audi- 


endo quam in recipiendis sacramentis, 
juxta illud, ‘ Qui vos audit, me audit.’ 
ec per eorum malitiam minuitur effec- 
tus, aut gratia donorum Christi rite ac 
cipientibus ; sunt enim efficacia J soe 
promissionem et ordinationem Christi, 
etiamsi per malos exhibeantur.” 


Sxc.I.] OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. 615 


quence.” If no Sacrament is valid, unless the priest intends that 
it should be so; then we know not whether our children be bap- 
tized, our wives married, our communions received, or our bishops 
consecrated. And this last question has been made much use of 
by the Church of Rome against the Church of England. It is 
urged, that a bishop or presbyter, who has a defective view of the 
grace of the Sacrament, cannot rightly administer it, because he 
does not intend to convey the full grace of that Sacrament. The 
bishops, for instance, who consecrated Archbishop Parker and 
others in the reign of Elizabeth, had a defective view of the effects 
of ordination and of the power of the clergy; they therefore did 
not intend to give, nor the consecrated ministers to receive, the full 
grace and privileges of the priesthood.. Hence those ministers 
were not rightly consecrated. 

This Article was not originally directed against this error; but 
it virtually and in effect meets it. Plainly, the relying on the 
intention of the minister results from a sort of belief that the 
minister himself is the depositary of grace, and can dispense that 
grace of his own will. If then, in outwardly ministering a Sacra- 
ment, he does not intend to confer the benefits of the Sacrament, 
they will not be conferred. Such seems the rationale of the doctrine 
of Intention. This Article, on the contrary, truly sets forth, that 
the clergy minister the Sacraments, not ‘in their own name, but in 
Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority ;”” and 
that the Sacraments be ‘effectual because of Christ: s institution 
and promise, though they be ministered by evil men.” So then, it 
is not because ministers will or intend to bestow grace, but because 
Christ has ordained to give grace through their ministry. If then 
they rightly administer, and we rightly receive the ordinance, we 
need not consider what is the mind of the priest, since it is not in 
the power of man’s intention to frustrate the gracious purposes of 
God. Were it otherwise, no Church could be sure of its orders, no 
Christian of his baptism. For none can tell, whether in Rome, or 
Greece, or England, that some careless or some malicious bishop 
may not have been indifferent, or opposed to the conferring of 
ordination, and so the whole line of succession have been cut off, 
and all the orders of the Church invalidated. None can tell that 
an evil minister may not secretly have cursed his infant, whilst out- 
wardly invoking a blessing on him, and so his baptismal privileges 
may have been annulled. But if we believe Christ’s Sacraments 
to be blessed, and Christ’s ministers to have authority, not as them- 
selves indued with grace, but as instruments, whereby God pours 


616 


it down upon us, then we need not fear to lose the treasure, though 
the vessel be but earthen, and itself fit only to be burned. 

The concluding paragraph in the Article lays it down, that 
inquiry ought to be made of evil ministers, and that if they are 
found guilty, they should by just judgment be deposed. There is 
not need of much history here. From the first, such discipline. 
prevailed, and has prevailed in every Church and sect. Thus the 
twenty-fifth of the Canons of the Apostles enjoins, that ‘a bishop 
or priest found guilty of fornication or perjury shall be deposed.” ? 
The twenty-seventh commands, that a bishop or priest who strikes 
one of the faithful, be deposed. The ninth canon of the first 
Council of Nice forbids that any be advanced to the order of pres- 
byter who have been previously guilty of any grievous sin ; and, 
if it be found out afterwards that he had so sinned, he is to be 
deposed.! | 

But so patent and obvious has been this custom of the Church, 
to inquire concerning scandalous ministers, to remove them that 
have erred, and, if possible, to forbid the ordination of the unde- 
serving, that it is needless to enlarge on it. Of course, there have 
been times of laxer, and times of stricter discipline ; but all times 
and all Churches have admitted the principle. 


OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. [Arr. XXVL 





Srecrion II].—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


1. HE first statement of the Article is, that “*In the Visible 

Church the evil are ever mingled with the good.’”” We saw 
something of this under Article XIX. It is clearly proved by 
our Lord's comparison of His kingdom to a field, in which tares 
and wheat grow together till the harvest (Matt. xiii. 24-30, 37- 
48); to a net, containing fish of every kind, that is, both the 
wicked and the just (Matt. xiii. 47-50); to a marriage-feas*, 
where some have the wedding garment, some have not ; all, ** both 
bad and good,” having been gathered into it (Matt. xxii. 10, 11). 
So St. Paul compares the Church to a great house, ‘in which there 


1 The Council of Florence (Jnstr. Ar- 
menor. Concil. Tom xi1t. p. 585) and the 
Council of Trent (Sess. vir. can. x1.) re- 
quire only an implicit intention in the 
minister, 7. 6, to do what the Church doth, 
or what Christ instituted. But this dis- 
tinction, which seems to have some jus- 
tice in it, is easily drawn out so as to 


save themselves, and yet to enable them 
to condemn us. The student may refer 
to Abp. Bramhall, Protestants’ Ordina- 
tion Defended, ¥. p. 210, Lib. of Angle 
Cath. Theology. 

2 Beveridge, Synodicon, Tom. 1. p. 16 

8 Ibid. p. 17. 

4 Ibid. p. 70. 


Sxo. Π] OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. 617 


are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth, 
and some to honour, and some to dishonour ” (2 Tim. ii. 20). These 
arguments are so conclusive, as, according to St. Augustine, to 
have converted even the Donatists.! 

The Article adds, that “¢ sometimes the evil have chief authority 
(presint) in the ministration of the word and Sacraments.” We 
need go no further than Judas for proof of this. Our Lord 
Himself gave all the same authority to him that He gave to the . 
rest of the Apostles; and yet He knew, when He chose him, that 
he was a devil (John vi. 70, 71). And so, later in the new Tes- 
tament, we read of Diotrephes (3 John 9), and others, who, 
though ministers of God, were not men of godliness. Our Lord 
Himself describes especially the character of some, who should be 
made “rulers over his household, to give them meat in due sea- 
son,” but who should ‘smite their fellow-servants, and eat and 
drink with the drunken,” and who at last should be ““ cut asunder, 
and have their portion with the hypocrites ” (Matt. xxiv. 45-61). 

2. It should hardly need much argument to prove, that that 
ministry which Christ permitted in His Church, may lawfully be 
used by His people. If He ordained Judas, we may use the 
ministry of such as Judas, and yet not lose blessing. And so He 
taught us, ‘* The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all there- 
fore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do 
not ye after their works: for they say and do not” (Matt. xxiii. 2, 
3). And the Apostles plainly teach, that not holiness in the minis- 
ter, but God’s blessing on their ministry, is the cause of good to 
His Church and growth to our souls. It was not by their “* own 
power and holiness”’ that they made the lame to walk ; but “ His 
name through faith in His name” (Acts iii. 12,16). Paul may 
have “ planted, and Apollos watered ; but God gave the increase. 
So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that 
watereth ; but God that giveth the increase” (1 Cor. iii. 6, 1). 
Paul and Apollos were but ‘ ministers, by whom men believed, 
even as the Lord gave to every man”’ (ver. 5). Great and glori- 
ous as the ministration was (2 Cor. ili. 7, 8), yet the treasure was 
in “earthen vessels, that the excellency might be of God, and not 
of” them (2 Cor. iv. 7). 

8. Still, though we do not believe that God’s ordinances lose 
their effect, because unworthy hands administer them ; yet it is 
obviously to be much desired, that those who minister in holy 


1 See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 1x. p. 844, who quotes Augustine, lib. post 
collationem, c. 9, 10. 


78 


618 OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. [Arr. XXVL 


things should themselves be men of holiness. If ungodly mem- 
bers should be excommunicated, much more should ungodly 
ministers be deposed. For, not only do such hinder the free 
course of the Gospel, and offend weak brethren ; but the torch of 
truth and holiness is most surely lit and handed on by those in 
whose heart it is burning and bright. The old Testament teaches 
that ‘‘ the priests should be clothed with righteousness ”’ (Ps. cxxxii. 
9); and that the Lord ‘ will be sanctified in them that come nigh 
Him” (Lev. x. 3). In the new Testament, besides general in- 
structions concerning discipline, there are special instructions con- 
cerning the discipline of the clergy. These are mostly to be 
found in the Epistles to Timothy, who, as bishop, has directions 
given him concerning the importance of “ laying hands suddenly 
on no man” (1 Tim. v. 22), concerning the mode of receiving an 
accusation against an elder (ver. 19), and as to how he was to 
rebuke those that sinned (ver. 20). This is a matter too plain to 
be insisted on; the common instincts of our nature and the 
universal practice of Christians consenting render argument un- 
necessary. 


ARTICLE XXVIII. 


a 


Of Baptism. 


Baptism is not only asign of profession, 
and mark of difference, whereby Chris- 
tian men are discerned from others that 
be not christened, but it is also a sign of 
Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as 
by an instrument, they that receive Bap- 
tism rightly are grafted into the Church ; 
the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of 
our adoption to be the sons of God by 
the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and 
sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace 
increased by virtue of prayer unto God. 
The Baptism of young Children is in 
any wise to be retained in the Church, 


De Baptismo. 


BaprtisMus non est tantum professioms 
signum, ac discriminis nota, qua Chris- 
tiani a non Christianis discernantur, sed 
etiam est signum regenerationis, per 
quod, tanquam per instrumentum, recte 
Baptismum suscipientes, ecclesie inse- 
runtur, promissiones de remissione pec- 
catorum, atque adoptione nostra in filios 
Dei per Spiritum sanctum visibiliter ob- 
signantur, fides confirmatur, et vi divine 
invocationis gratia augetur. 

Baptismus parvulorum omnino in Ee- 
clesia retinendus est, ut qui cum Christi 
institutione optime congruat. 


as most agreeable with the institution of 
Christ. 





Section I.— DEFINITION OF DOCTRINE. 


T is, unhappily, well known to every one, how much discord has 

arisen on the subject of baptismal grace. On the one side, 
men, perceiving that in Scripture the new birth of the Spirit is 
closely coupled with new birth by water, and that the ancient 
Church ever identified baptism with regeneration, have unhesi- 
tatingly taught that regeneration is the grace of baptism, never 
separated from it, but when the recipient places a bar against it by 
impenitence. On the other side, it has been observed, that the 
grace of regeneration is a death unto sin and a new birth unto 
righteousness ; that it extends to an entire renewal of the moral 
nature of man, restoring him to the image of Him who created 
him; that no such change as this can be attributed to the 
washing with water ; that such a change can only result from the 
influences of God’s Spirit, subduing the perverse will, and bringing 
the whole man into captivity to the obedience of Christ; and 
that, as a matter of fact and experience, the vast majority of the 
baptized never have undergone, and never do undergo, a change so 
momentous and unmistakable. 

The difference of opinion has often been considered to depend 
on the different tenets of the opposing parties concerning pre- 


620 OF BAPTISM. [Anr. XXVIL 


destination ; the Calvinist denying that baptized infants are regen- 
erate, because grace once given can never be forfeited; the anti- 
Calvinist explaining the apparent anomaly, that the baptized are 
often practically unregenerate, by saying that the grace has been 
given, but lost by unfaithfulness. Something beyond this, how- 
ever, must be at the root of the disagreement; for St. Augustine, 
and a large number of zealous predestinarians, have held high doc- 
trine on baptismal grace ; whilst many, who reject the tenet of 
absolute predestination, have been as strongly opposed to the doc- 
trine of baptism, which Augustine and many of his followers have 
allowed. 

It is perhaps too much to say that the diversity is dependent 
on mere difference of definition. Yet accurate definition is no 
doubt very desirable; and it is probable that, if both parties 
understood either their own or their opponents’ principles better, 
they would find many more points of contact, and many fewer 
grounds of disagreement than at present. As it is, both sides see 
one important aspect of truth, and both perhaps often overlook its 
opposite, and equally necessary phase. On the one hand, the 
importance of training up children as heirs of immortality and 
recipients of the seed of life, is much and rightly insisted on; on 
the other side, too much overlooked. But again, the belief in the 
grace of baptism at times has led to some degree of formalism and 
neglect of spiritual vitality; whilst those who deny that grace 
have exhibited a greater zeal for conversion of souls from sin and 
error, because putting no trust on the supposed existence of a 
spark of grace derived to all professing Christians in the initiatory 
Sacrament. 

May there not be a possibility of holding the truth which 
there is on both sides, without the error of either ? 

Baptism is confessedly an embracing the service of God, an 
enlisting into the army of Christ, to fight under His banner, the 
Cross. Every one, therefore, who is baptized, is thenceforth bound 
to be a faithful follower of Him whose soldier he has professed 
himself. But it is not God’s plan to entail responsibilities on us, 
without giving us the power to fulfil them. Hence naturally we 
might expect that, when He has called us to His service, He 
would furnish us with arms and strength to the contest. It is 
better therefore to begin with God’s gifts to us: for we can only 
give Him of His own: ᾿Εκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα. 

1. We know then, first of all, that God, in Christ, has made 
with man a covenant of grace. The terms of that covenant are on 


Sec. 1] OF BAPTISM. 621 


God’s part, that He, for Christ’s sake, not for our merit, freely, fully, 
graciously pours down upon undeserving sinners, (1) pardon of 
sin; (2) the aid of the Spirit; (8) in the end, everlasting life. 
All this is given us in Christ. No terms are in the first place 
required from us; for we have none to give. We have but to 
accept the offer of free pardon made to rebellious subjects, and, 
with pardon, of strength for the future to obey. 

Now baptism is the formal act by which we are admitted into 
covenant with God. It is the embracing of God’s covenant of 
grace in Christ: in the case of adults, by their own deliberate 
εν ἄν ; in the case of infants, by God’s merciful « appointment, and 
according to the election of grace. 

We cannot doubt of the truth of God’s promises. Hence 
we may be assured, that He will make good His covenant to 
all that are brought within the terms of it: ὁ. 6. to all who are 
baptized. Hence again, we infer that the promises to the bap- 
tized, and therefore the blessings of baptism, are : — 

(1.) Pardon of sins. 

(2.) The aid of the Spirit of God. 

(3.) If not forfeited, everlasting life. 


2. But, moreover, baptism is the engrafting into the Church, 
to which belong the covenant and the promises. The’Church is 
the body of Christ ; and Christ is its covenanted Head. Hence 
we see another relation consequent on baptism ; namely, that we 
thereby become members of Christ. And indeed without this we 
could not receive the blessings of the covenant. For pardon and 
grace can only flow to us from Christ. It is in Him that God 
gives us both, — that God will give us everlasting life. “ In Him is 
life.’ ‘* He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the 
Son of God hath not life.” 

So too, the Church is the family of God, as well as the body 
of Christ. Hence by baptism we become, not only members of 
the mystical body of the Lord, but adopted children of our heay- 
enly Father. God thenceforward looks on us as united, accord- 
ing to covenant, to His Son, and hence as His children by grace ; 
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. 

Thus, in the language of the Catechism, we are made in bap- 
tism members of Christ, children of God, and therefore inheritors 
of the kingdom of heaven.! 


1 Inheritance, be it observed, implies sibility of being disinherited. Thus St. 
not certainty of possession, but the pos- Paul: “Let us therefore fear, lest, a 


622 OF BAPTISM. 


All this results from the nature of a covenant and the nature of 
the Church. 

But here a great practical question has arisen, which it is of the 
utmost importance not to disregard. Does all this merely indicate 
a new outward federal relation of the baptized to God ? or does it 
imply a spiritual change in the soul itself, and a moral change of 
disposition ? A federal relation it undoubtedly points out ; for the 
soul is by baptism taken into covenant in Christ. . But a covenant 
on God’s part implies the faithfulness of the Covenanter. Hence, 
undoubtedly, baptism guarantees a spiritual change in the condition 
of the recipient. But we must not confound a spiritual change in 
the condition of the soul, with a moral change of the disposition 
and tempers. It is a great spiritual change to be received into 
Christ’s Church, to be counted as a child of God, to obtain re- 
mission of sins, and to have the aid and presence of the Spirit of 
God. But a moral change can only be the result of the soul’s prof- 
iting by the spiritual change. If the presence of the Sanctifier 
does not produce sanctification, no moral change has been effected. 
If the pleadings of the Spirit have been rejected, and the soul has 
remained unmoved under them, it cannot be said that there is a 
moral renovation of the character.! 

We may therefore define the internal grace of baptism to con- 
sist rather in the assured presence of the Renovator, than in the 
actual renovation of the heart. The latter is indeed the natural 
result of the influence of the former; but it requires also another 
element, namely, the yielding of the will of the recipient to the 


(Arr. XXVIL 


previous influences of the Sanctifier.? 


promise being left us of entering into His 
rest, any of you should seem to come 
short of it’ (Heb. iv. 1). There may be 
a promise of future blessing, which may 
be forfeited by sin (Comp. Heb. xii. 15, 
16, 28). 

1 |A change of the spirit is a different 
thing from a change in the spirit, and 
yet each is a spiritual change. — J. W.} 

2 Hooker (though rather practical and 
devotional, than formal and logical in his 
statements) seems to say much the same 
as I have said in the text. ‘ Baptism is 
a Sacrament which God hath instituted 
in His Church, to the end that they 
which receive the same might be incor- 
porated into Christ, and so through His 
precious merit obtain as well that saving 
grace of imputation which taketh away 
all former guiltiness, as also that infused 
Divine virtue of the Holy Ghost, which 
giveth to the powers of the soul their first dis- 
posilion towards fulure newness of life.”’— 


Feel. Pol. v. ix. ἃ. Waterland more ac- 
curately defines the distinction (in the 
case especially of infant baptism) between 
the grace given in baptism, called regen- 
eration, and the effects of it when culti- 
vated in the heart and life, called reno- 
vation. ‘“ Regeneration is a kind of re- 
newal, but then it is of the spiritual state 
considered at large ; whereas renovation 
seems to mean a more particular kind of 
renewal, namely, of the inward frame or 
disposition of the man. ... Regenera- 
tion may be granted and received (as in 
infants) where that renovation has yet 
no place at all for the time being.” 
Again, “ Regeneration and renovation 
differ in respect to the effective cause or 
agency ; for one is the work of the Spirit 
in the use of water, that is of the Spirit 
singly, since water really does nothing, 
is no agent at all; but the other is the work 
of the Spirit and the man together.” Again, 
“Tt may reasonably be that 


Sxc. 1. OF BAPTISM. 623 


It is unnecessary to inquire here, whether the presence of God’s 
Spirit is not vouchsafed to others besides the baptized. We have 
instances of such in Cornelius, whose prayers and alms were ac- 
cepted, whilst he was yet in ignorance of the Gospel; and upon 
whom the Holy Ghost fell, before he had received the baptism of 
water (Acts x. 4, 44, 47). The point to be remembered is this, 
that to the baptized the aid of the Spirit is promised by covenant ; and 
therefore to them it is assured. Others may receive it, according 
to the will of God; but cannot claim it, according to His promise. 

Now this fact, that baptism, from the very nature of the cove- 
nant, carries with it an assurance of pardon for sins, of adoption 
into the Church, and of aid from the Spirit, is sufficient to warrant 
the term, ‘“‘ Baptismal Regeneration.” Birth into the Church and 
adoption into the family of God, remission of original sins in in- 
fants, and of all past sins in worthily receiving adults, and the gift 
of the Spirit to renew and sanctify, comprise the elements of the 
new birth, the germ of spiritual life. Hence they are called by 
the Church “Spiritual Regeneration.” Yet, as God’s gifts of grace 
are not compulsory, it follows that the baptized, by his own per- 
verseness, may reject them all. Whether then he received bap- 
tism in infancy or in maturity, if he has not profited by its bless- 
ings, he has never received such a renovation of heart and nature 
that he can be called practically regenerate. Nay! his heart is 
unregenerate, although his outward state and his covenanted privi- 
leges be never so great. He yet needs conversion and renewal of 
spirit. And hence it comes to pass, that many of our greatest di- 
vines (6. g. Hammond, J. Taylor, Beveridge), who held distinctly 
the doctrine of baptismal grace, or baptismal regeneration, yet con- 
stantly spoke of some of the baptized as still unregenerate; be- 


from the time of their new birth by 
water and the Spirit (which at that very 
moment is a renewal of their state to 
Godward) the renewing also of their 
heart may come gradually in, with their 
first dawnings of reason, in such meas- 
ure as they shall be capable of; in a 
way to us imperceptible, but known to 
that Divine Spirit who regenerates them, 
and whose temple thenceforth they are, 
till they defile themselves with actual 
and grievous sin. In this case it is to be 
noticed that regeneration precedes, and 
renovation commonly follows after.” — 
Waterland, On Regeneration. 

Bishop Bethell appears to adopt the 
same view: “ Regeneration is a spiritual 
grace, and, in a certain sense, every 
spiritual grace may be said to be moral, 


because it effects a change in a man’s 
moral nature. But the word Moral, to 
speak more properly, implies choice, and 
consciousness, and self-action, and facul- 
ties or dispositions expanding themselves 
into habits; and hence moral graces or 
virtues are, as Waterland expresses him- 
self, ‘the joint work of the Spirit and 
the man.’ ”—Doctrine of Regeneration in 
Baptism. Fifth Edition, p. 247. 

I must venture to say that, agreeing 
fully in the general statement of all these 
passages, I should rather speak of the 
“yielding of the man’s will to the Spirit 
of God,” than of “ the joint work of the 
Spirit and the man.” ‘The latter sounds 
to me too much like a claim of inde- 
pendence for weak and sinful humanity. 


624 OF BAPTISM. ὁ [Anr. XXVIL. 


cause, though God could not be supposed to have failed to make 
good His promise to them, yet they had not yielded to His Spirit’s 
gracious influences; and so their hearts had never been renewed 
“after the image of Him that created them ;” and they had con- 
tinued in darkness and in the bondage of corruption, though * called 
to the glorious liberty of the children of God.” 

If we take this as the explanation of the great doctrine in ques- 
tion, we may see at once : — 

1, That the absence of practical results, and of anything like 
practical spiritual life in many of the baptized, is not to be account- 
ed for merely and solely by the theory that such have early fallen 
away from grace and from a state of holiness once effected; for 
from the first they may never have yielded to the gracious work- 
ings of the Spirit, and so real practical holiness may never have 
been produced. 

2. Nor, again, must it be accounted for by the hypothesis, that 
their regeneration is in a state of abeyance, until their own will 
rises to meet and codperate with the grace bestowed upon them. 
For this hypothesis seems to savour of Semi-pelagianism, making 
the will, as it were, an independent agent, codrdinate and equally 
efficient with the Holy Spirit; and allowing it a spontaneous move- 
ment towards good. Whereas, sound evangelical truth will teach 
us to consider the will utterly incapable of moving towards holiness, 
till first quickened to it by the grace of God. 

3. But the real solution of the difficulty will appear to be, that, 
though God never failed of His promise, and though the aid and 
presence of His Spirit were ever vouchsafed to the recipients 
of baptism, yet their wills had never yielded to be renewed by 
it; and therefore, though subjects of the grace of God, they had 
never brought forth the fruits of holiness. 

Yet all baptized persons, though not personally sanctified, have 
a relative holiness: For, — 

1. They are members of the Church, which is holy; branches 
therefore of the true Vine, even if they are fruitless branches, and 
so withering and dying. They have a covenanted relation to, and 
a spiritual union with Christ, who is the Head of His Body mys- 
tical. 

2. They are adopted into the family of God; and, though they 
be from the first rebellious and prodigal sons, yet they have a cov- 
enanted title to be regarded as children, and moreover, if they 
return from their wanderings, to be received and welcomed as 
children, 


Sec. [.] OF BAPTISM. 625 


3. They have been solemnly set apart and dedicated to God, 
consecrated to be temples of the Holy Ghost: and as such, have 
a real, even though it may be a rejected presence of the Spirit 
assured to them. ‘That presence will, if they cultivate and obey 
it, truly sanctify them, but, if not cultivated, but resisted, it will 
leave them in unfruitfulness.} 

A distinction must be drawn between adult and infant recipi- 
ents. 

1. In the case of adults, faith and repentance are necessary pre- 
requisites ; and without them we must not expect the blessings of 
the Sacrament. But then the reason why these graces are requi- 
site is not because they contribute their share to the production 
of the grace of baptism. That would be to derogate from the free 
gift of God, and from the bounty of the Giver. On the contrary, 
we must ever esteem the grace of God to be free and unmerited, 
and not attracted to us by any good which is in us. It is not the 
active quality of our faith which makes us worthy recipients. That 
would be to make faith a fellow-worker with, and in itself inde- 
pendent of the Spirit of God; which is closely bordering on Semi- 
pelagian heresy. But, though our faith cannot be of that meri- 
torious character, that it should elicit grace from above, yet our 
impenitence and unbelief are permitted to act as obstacles to the 
free-working of the grace of God; and, by our own obstinacy and 
hardness of heart, we may ‘‘ quench the Spirit.” 

Hence, that there may be no impediment to their regeneration, 
a believing and penitent spirit must be cultivated in those who are 
to be baptized; lest, like Simon Magus, they receive the washing 
of water, but still remain, as regards their hearts and consciences, 
‘in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.” 

2. Concerning infants the case is different. Active faith in them 
is not possible; nor is it even to be desired. It is not the active 
character of his faith which seems to qualify the adult. It is 
rather, that it implies and assures an absence of that repelling 
obstinacy and hard-heartedness which makes sinners reject the 
mercy of the Lord. 

The very helplessness of infants is, in this case, their protection. 


1 Whether the Spirit ever finally leaves 
in this life the soul which has been con- 
secrated to Him, and utterly ceases to 
plead with it, is a question too hard to 
answer. God’scovenant is to give His 
Spirit ; and if we do not drive Him away, 
he will abide with us forever, and lead 
us daily onward. Thus our baptism may 


79 


be called a life-long work. Even when 
resisted and grieved, we may hope that 
He does not soon ‘“‘take His everlasting 
flight.” Yet we cannot say that there 
may be no period of impenitence, when 
God shall swear in His wrath, ‘‘ My 
Spirit shall no longer plead.” 


626 OF BAPTISM. [Anr. XXVI. 


‘We cannot too much remember, that God's gifts come from Him and 
not from us; from His mercy, not our merits, our faith, or our obe- 
dience. ‘The only obstacle which infants can offer to grace, is the 
taint of original corruption. But to say that original sin is a bar 
to receiving remission of original sin (which is one chief grace of 
this Sacrament), is a positive contradiction in terms. 

Again, the theory that the faith of parents or of sponsors is ne- 
cessary to give effect to baptism in infants, is not to be maintained 
for an instant.1_ This were to cross the whole principle of evangel- 
ical mercy. It would be to make the child’s salvation hinge on its 
parent’s faithfulness. It would make God’s grace contingent, not 
even on the merits of the recipient, but actually on the merits of 
the recipient’s friends. Sponsors, after all, are probably of human 
institution, and therefore cannot affect a divine ordinance. And 
this theory does sadly derogate from the grace of God, which acts 
ever freely and spontaneously ; and grievously magnifies the office 
of human faith, which is humbly to receive mercy, not arrogantly 
to deserve it.” 

Once more, the theory that infants have need of a “ prevenient 
act of grace,” to make them meet for remission of sins, is evidently 
‘founded on a low appreciation of God’s pardoning love. The very 
thing which makes them meet for pardon, is their helpless sinful- 
ness. ‘This is their very plea for mercy ; and cannot therefore be 
the bar opposed to it. If they were not sinful, they would need 
neither pardon nor grace. Active hostility and wilful obstinacy 
they cannot exhibit. And God’s mercy in Christ extends to the 
pardon of all sinners, who do not wilfully reject it. Hence the 
Church has ever held, that there is nothing in the character of 
infants (whose sinfulness is inevitable, and not wilfully contract- 
ed) which can offer an insuperable obstacle to receiving the grace 
of remission of sin, or the aid of the Spirit of God. 

But, though it be true that infants can, at the time of their bap- 
tism, oppose no obstacle, lest they should receive pardon and grace ; 
and though therefore, in case of their death before actual sin, we 
believe in the certainty of their salvation; yet we must bear in 
mind, that the pardon of sin and the aid of the Spirit, assured (and 
therefore surely given) at baptism, will not have produced an 
entire change of their nature, eradicating the propensity to sin, and 


1 That is to say, beyond the fact that, believers are proper subjects of baptism. 
without an act of faith on the part of This may be the case from God's ap- 
parents or sponsors, infants would not pointment, not because of an imputation 
come to baptism at all. to the infant of the parent’s fitness for 

2 It is quite another question how far grace. 
any but the children of Christians and 


Src. 1] OF BAPTISM. 627 


new creating a sanctified heart. The grace of the Spirit, we may 
believe, will, as the reason opens and the will developes, plead 
with their spirits, prompt them to good and warn them from evil ; 
and, if not resisted, will doubtless lead them daily onwards in pro- 
gressive holiness. But the power too to resist, which they did not 
possess in infancy, will daily increase with their increasing reason 
and activity ; and their actual and internal sanctification will re- 
sult only from an obedient yielding to the grace of the Sanctifier ; 
and will be utterly abortive, if, through sinful propensities and 
sinful indulgence of them, that grace be stifled, disregarded, or 
abused. 

Thus, though we may not define the grace of the Spirit, vouch- 
safed in infant baptism, to be a ““ mere potential principle,” and, until 
it be stirred up, “‘ dormant and inactive ;”” yet we may define it, so 
as to understand that its active operations are only to be expected 
when the dawning reason and rising will themselves become active 
and intelligent; and that anything like a real moral renovation of 
disposition and character can only be looked for, where the adoles- 
cent will does not resist and quench the gracious influences of the 
Spirit of God, but suffers itself to be moulded and quickened into 
a state of subjection to the good pleasure of the Lord, and of like- 
ness to the character of Christ. 

Yet this need not prevent us from believing that the aid of the 
Spirit has been vouchsafed, even to those who have never profited 
by it. It is possible for a branch to be grafted into a vine, and a 
stream of nourishment to flow from the root to it; and yet, if a 
knot or obstacle exist in the branch, the life of the vine may never 
reach the engrafted member; from no fault in the parent stem, 
but from the hardening of the bough itself. It is in like manner 
possible, that the infant grafted into the true Vine, a member of 
the Body mystical of Christ, may, through its own fault as it grows 
to maturity, fail of deriving grace from the life of the Spirit, 
and yet there be no unfaithfulness on the part of the Giver, no 
want of liberality in the Fountain of goodness. And this seems 
sufficiently to account for the well-known and familiar fact, that so 
many millions of baptized Christians grow up to manhood with no 
profit from their baptism, and when grown up, can be considered, 
in their spiritual condition, as no better, if not worse, than heathen 
men: except, at least, that they are in the formal covenant of grace, 
and are therefore admitted to its outward ordinances ; have prob- 
ably from time to time the Spirit’s warnings and pleadings; and 
have the assurance too, that, on their repentance and conversion: 


628 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


God will ever receive them to His mercy, and welcome them as 
prodigal sons returning to their Vather, as sheep coming back to the 
Shepherd of their souls. 





Section II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


HANNS: thus defined the doctrine, we may proceed to con- 
sider the Scriptural evidence for its truth.! 


I. First, let us see what aid we can derive from the old Testa- 
ment, and from Jewish rites and language. 

1. It is an acknowledged fact, that circumcision among the 
Jews was the typical and corresponding rite to baptism in the 
Church. It admitted into the Mosaic covenant; as baptism ad- 
mits into the Christian. It was given to Abraham for that very 
end, that it might be the initiatory rite, the seal and token of the 
covenant between God and the posterity of Abraham. (See 
Gen. xvii. 9-14; Acts vii. 8.) The person who had received 
circumcision, was a partaker of God’s promises to the Israelites. 
(See Exod. xii. 48.) The person who neglected it, was to be cut 
off from the people (Gen. xvii. 14; Exod. iv. 24, ἄς.) St. Paul 
himself draws the parallel between this Jewish rite and the Chris- 
tian rite of baptism; which latter he calls “ circumcision made 
without hands” (Col. ii. 11,12). And from his language it is 
plain that the parallel altogether holds good, allowing for this im- 
portant difference, that circumcision admitted to a legal or carnal 
covenant, baptism admits to a spiritual covenant. 

2. In addition to circumcision, thus given by God, it is well 
known that the Jews, in admitting proselytes from heathenism, 
ever added a form of washing, or baptism. They baptized all, men, 
women, and children, of any proselyted family ; and then they es- 
teemed them as new-born from their Gentile heathenism into the 
Church or family of Israel. The language which they used con- 


! The principal heads or divisions of III. Baptism considered as admittin 
the subject considered in this section to the Church; which is, 1, the Body o 
are : — Christ; 2, the Family of God ; 8, the King- 

I. The light to be derived from the dom of Heaven; 4, the Temple of the 
old Testament. Holy Ghost. 

II. Baptism considered as admitting IV. Baptism, as related to spiritual 
us to a Covenant; involving a promise, regeneration. 

1, of ae 2, of spiritual aid; ὃ, of eter- . Objections considered and an- 
nal life. swered. 


Sxc. II] OF BAPTISM. 629 


cerning such, was very remarkable. ‘ If any one become a prose- 
lyte, he is like a child new-born.” “The gentile that is made a 
proselyte, and the servant that is made free, behold, he is like a 
child new-born ; and all those relations which he had while either 
a gentile or a servant, they now cease from being so.” Nay! they 
even taught that men might legally marry those who had been 
their former relations ; though, for edification and propriety, it was 
forbidden.? 

This well accounts for the way in which the Jews understood 
the baptism of John. They knew that baptism implied admis- 
sion into a new covenant or faith; and when he baptized, they 
thought he did so because the age of Messias was come, and that 
he himself must be either the Messiah, or else Elias, who was to 
prepare the way for Him. (See Johni. 19, 25. ) Those, too, who 
were baptized of him, came confessing their sins, because in the 
baptism of proselytes it had been always the custom to examine 
into the spirit and motives of the converts, before they were ad- 
mitted to the rite of initiation.” 

Our Lord was ever pleased to adapt His teaching and ordinances 
to the habits and understanding of the people whom He taught. 
The Lord’s Prayer is a collection from familiar Jewish forms.* 
The cup in the Lord’s Supper was taken from the wine-cups used, 
by ordinary custom, at the ancient Passover, one of which was 
called “the cup of blessing.”* These were but human insti- 
tutions; yet our gracious Saviour, stooping to man’s infirmities, 
sanctioned with His approval, and sanctified with His blessing, 
things which before had but earthly authority. There can be lit- 
tle, or no doubt, that it was so with baptism. Washing was a com- 
mon mode of typical purification, in use on all occasions with the 
Jews: especially it was ordained for the ceremonial purification of 
proselytes. And accordingly, our Lord adopts and authorizes it, 
as the means for the admission of proselytes or converts from Ju- 
daism or heathenism into the Gospel and the Church: for admit- 
ting to a participation of the covenant of grace, as circumcision had 
admitted to the covenant of works. 

Circumcision then, and Jewish baptism, were both types and 
precursors of Christian baptism ; and from the signification and use 
of them we may infer somewhat concerning the signification and 
use of baptism. 

3. Besides these, there were certain great events in old Testa 


1 See Lightfoot, H. H. on John iii. 8. 3 Lightfoot, on Matt. vi. 9. 

2 See at length Lightfoot, H. H. on * Lightfoot, on Matt. xxvi. 27. 
Matt. iii. 6. See also Wall, On Infant 
Baptism, Introduction, passim. 


OO Υ ΗΘ ΨΥ ΡΥ ΨΨ ΨΥ ΤΥ 


. 680 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


ment history to which the Apostles point as typical of baptism, 
-especially the ark of Noah, and the passage of the Red Sea. In 
the ark of Noah, God’s chosen people were saved, so as by water, 
from the destruction of a perishing world. The ark was, as it 
were, the body of the Church, in'which all who entered it might 
be safe. To this, St. Peter tells us, baptism is the counterpart 
(ἀντίτυπον) (1 Pet. iii. 21); because by baptism we have access to 
the Church, and to that salvation which God has ordaizied in the 
Church. 

4, The passage of the Red Sea was the first step of the Israelites 
from the land of their bondage. Before they passed it, they were 
slaves; after they had passed it, they were free, their enemies 
were overthrown, and they were delivered. Yet it was a passage, 
not into Canaan, but into the wilderness; deliverance from iney- 
itable bondage, but not deliverance from fighting and toil. They 
had yet forty years to wander, before the passage of Jordan should 
lead them into rest. In these forty years’ wanderings they had 
contests, temptations, and dangers. Though saved from Pharaoh, 
their disobedience and unbelief overthrew most of them in the wil- 
derness ; and but few of those who had passed through the sea, 
ever reached the home of their inheritance. St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 
1-12) sets this before us, as a type of Christian baptism and Chris- 
tian life. Baptism is to us a rite ordained for our deliverance, — 
deliverance from sin and the slavery of sin; but it is only our first 
step in the course of our profession; and if we, like the Israelites, 
though bathed in the waters and fed from the manna and the rock, 
yet lust, and murmur, and tempt Christ, and commit idolatry and 
impurity, we must expect to fall under the power of the serpent, 
to be destroyed of the destroyer, and never to enter into that 
promised land, which is nevertheless the inheritance prepared for 
us of God. 


II. Baptism then is admission into the Christian covenant, as 
circumcision was admission into the Jewish covenant. Now a 
covenant implies two parties, and certain stipulations. In the case 
of enemies it requires a mediator. In the old covenant, the par- 
ties were God and the Jews: the Mediator was Moses: the stipu- 
lations were, “" This do:” and then the promise was, “ Thou shalt 
live.” The whole dispensation was worldly and legal. It had no 
promise of eternal life, but only of temporal prosperity. It had no 
sacrifice which could take away sin (Heb. x. 4). It had no assur- 
ance of the aid of the Spirit of God." 

1 See some reflections on this subject, Art. vir. sect. 11. p. 197. 


Sxc. II.] OF BAPTISM. 631 


But the new covenant is widely different : a covenant of grace, 
not a covenant of works; not after the law of a carnal command- 
ment, but after the power of an endless life. Its promises are not 
earthly, but heavenly. Its Mediator is not Moses, but Jesus Christ. 
In Him there is forgiveness of sins. From Him flows the Spirit 
of grace. By Him is an everlasting inheritance. And so God 
Himself describes the blessings to those within the new covenant 
to be, that He would be ‘ merciful to their unrighteousness,’’ and 
no more remember their sins; and that He would “ put His laws 
into their minds, and write them in their hearts”’ (Heb. viii. 10, 
12). 

We may see at once therefore, wherein circumcision and bap- 
tism differ; why neither remission of sins nor spiritual aid were 
promised to the recipients of the former ; why both are promised 
to the recipients of the latter. Neither could belong to a cove- 
nant of works; neither could flow from their Mediator Moses. 
Both are parts of the covenant of grace ; both flow to us from our 
Mediator Christ. In short, God’s part in the new covenant is 
this: He assures to us pardon, the Spirit, life eternal. This, how- 
ever, involves a response on our parts. We promise renuncia- 
tion of sin, faith in the Gospel, obedience to the commands. This 
is the covenant between God and man, made in Christ. But 
God’s part must come first. We cannot move a step till He gives 
us life. Weare helpless, but in His strength. Hence God must 
first move to give us grace, before we can move to do Him ser- 
vice. He will not break His part of the covenant. He will not 
keep back His promise. Therefore, when we are baptized, being 
received into the covenant, we may be sure that God will give us, 
1, pardon in Christ, 2, help through Christ: if we reject both, we 
shall fail of the final promise, which is, 3, eternal life. But the 
failure will be from us, not from Him: from our will not respond- 
ing to His motions; from our spirit not yielding to the influence 
of His Spirit; not from a keeping back on His part of pardon or 
grace. All this seems to be the necessary result of the striking 
of a covenant, which is done at the baptismal font, between us 
and God. 

To this view of the subject belong the questions and answers 
made at Baptism. The Church recounts God’s promise, ‘ to re- 
ceive the person baptized, to release him of his sins, to sanctify 
him with the Holy Ghost, to give him the kingdom of Heaven, 
and everlasting life: ” and adds, “ which promise He, for His part, 
will most surely keep and perform.” But then she goes on te 


> 


632 OF BAPTISM. 


require, that the person to be baptized (or his sureties, if he be an 
infant) shall respond to God’s promises, by engaging to fulfil his 
part of the covenant, namely, to renounce the devil, to believe all 
the articles of the Christian faith, and obediently to keep God’s com- 
mandments. This custom has existed from the very earliest times. 
It is mentioned by Tertullian (who wrote but a hundred years 
after the Apostles) as having prevailed in the Church, by immemo- 
rial tradition.1 The ancients very generally understood St. Peter 
to allude to this, in the famous passage concerning the ark of Noah 
(1 Pet. iii. 21).2. There, having spoken of the deliverance of 
Noah and his family from the deluge, which overwhelmed the 
wicked, he goes on to say, that baptism is the counterpart of (ἀντίτυ- 
mov, that which actually corresponds with and resembles) the ark. 
For, as the ark saved Noah, so baptism saves us.2 But then, lest 
it should appear as if he taught baptism to act as a charm or incan- 
tation, ex opere operate, he adds, “ not the putting away the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.’’# 
That is to say, the mere washing with water will not save the soul. 
It is the appointed ordinance for bringing the soul into the ark of 
the Church, into covenant with God, and therefore into a state of 
salvation. God’s Spirit and blessing too are assured to its recipi- 
ents. But,in order that it may be a truly saving ordinance, the 
conscience of the recipient must respond to the mercy of God; just 
as the catechumen is required to make answer to the interroga- 
tions then proposed to him. ‘ The answer of a good conscience ” 
most probably alludes te the pledge given by the baptized in 
reply to the questions; but it seems still farther to indicate, that 
as the lips then move in answer to the questions of the minister, 
so, if the ordinance is to be truly life-giving, the heart of the respon- 
dent must move in obedience to the grace received by it, must 
spring up in response to the good motions of the Spirit of God. 
To return then to what was said above ; God’s part in the cove- 
nant is to give, (1) pardon or remission of sins, (2) the aid of the 
Spirit, and (3) (in the end, and our part.of the covenant not being 


(Arr. XXVIL 


1 De Coron. Milit. ο. 8. 

2 See Cave, Primitive Christianity, pt. 1. 
ch. x. p. 815; Bingham, H. Z. Bk. x1. 
ch. vir. sect. 3; Neander, Church History, 
1. sect. 111. 

8. "Qe καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει βά- 
πτισμα. 

4 ἐπερώτημα properly signifies yuestion 
or questioning. So the Vulgate, conscien- 
tie bone interrogatio in Deum; which is 
too literal to be intelligible. We must 


probably understand a metonymy of ques- 
tion for answer. So the Syriac renders it, 
“ΝΟΥ when you wash the body from filth, 
but when you confess God in a pure 
conscience.” So the futhers evidently 
interpret it, as Tertullian ; Anima respon- 
sione sancitur. — De Resurrect. c. 48. So 
more modern interpreters, for the most 
part, ὁ. φ. Erasmus; Quo fit, ut bona con- 
scientia respondeat apud Devm, And Be- 
za: Stipulatio bone conscientia apud Deum. 


Sec. 11. OF BAPTISM. 633 


violated) eternal life. Now these are just the blessings which 
are not only the obvious promises of the baptismal covenant, but 
which moreover Scripture couples immediately with the actual 
rite of baptism. 

1. Remission of sins is promised to the baptized. 

Even John the Baptist preached “the baptism of repentance, 
for the remission of sins” (Mark i. 4); although he constantly 
pointed to ““ One mightier than himself, who should baptize with the 
Holy Ghost” (Mark i. 7, 8). But Christian baptism is far more 
distinctly spoken of as bringing this grace with it. St. Peter told 
the multitude convinced by his preaching, to ““ repent and be bap- 
tized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins” (Acts 
ii. 88). Ananias bade Saul of Tarsus, “" Arise and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins”’ (Acts xxii. 16). In allusion to this doctrine 
of God’s pardoning love, assured to those who come for it in bap- 
tism, we find St. Paul mentioning, as one of the requisites for draw- 
ing near to God through our great High Priest, that we should 
have ‘our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. x. 22). Again 
he tells us, that Christ cleanses the Church “by the washing of 
water”? (Eph. v. 25, 26). And when he reminds the Corinthians 
of their past lives of sin and impurity, he comforts them by adding, 
“But ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified,” ὅς. (1 
Cor. vi. 11). In which passage, it is true, that ‘* washed” may be 
to be taken figuratively ; yet at least the figure is borrowed from 
baptism, and the more literal and obvious interpretation of it would 
apply it directly to baptism. In another place, we find, “ the 
washing of regeneration ᾿ put as the correlative of justification (see 
Tit. ui. 5,7). According to such words of Scripture, the Con- 
stantinopolitan Creed contains the clause, “1 acknowledge one 
Baptism for the remission of sins ;’’ where, although some lay all 
the stress on the word “ one,” as intended to prohibit the iteration 

of baptism, yet it cannot be denied, that the words “ for the remis- 
_ sion of sins” indicate the belief of the council that that grace was 
annexed to baptism, a belief which the fathers of that council re- 
peatedly have expressed in those works of theirs which have come 
down to us. 

2. The aid of the Holy Spirit is promised to the baptized. This 
is the express declaration of St. Peter in the passage just quoted. 
« Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost.” And lest it should be thought that this meant but 


the temporary, miraculous gifts of the Spirit, he continues, ‘ for the 
80 


634 OF BAPTISM. [Anr XXVIL 


promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts ii. 38, 39). 

It is scarcely necessary to add proofs to so plain a statement; 
yet we find direct evidence in the history of the Acts, that the 
presence of the Spirit accompanied the administration of baptism. 
Thus, in the case of Cornelius and his household, who had received 
the Holy Ghost by direct effusion from above, St. Peter immedi- 
ately enjoined, that baptism should be administered to them, that 
the outward rite should not be wanting to whom the inward grace 
was already given (Acts x. 47,48). Certain Ephesian converts 
had not received the Holy Ghost. St. Paul, finding this to be the 
ease, then asked them, “ Unto what they were baptized?” and 
they said, ‘* Unto John’s baptism.’”” Whereupon, the Apostle en- 
joined them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and 
when they had been so baptized, he laid his hands on them, and 
they received the Holy Ghost (Acts xix. 2, 6). It is probably 
true that, in both these instances, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit 
were given; yet the connection between the gift of the Spirit 
and the Sacrament of baptism is plainly pointed out by them; con- 
firming the doctrine which the words of St. Peter so distinctly 
have laid down. 

3. Eternal life is promised to the baptized. 

Here indeed we must qualify the promise. Eternal life is not so 
much a present gift, asa future contingency. It is a treasure laid 
up for us; not a deposit committed to us. Both pardon and grace 
may be. forfeited ; yet they are present possessions. Heaven is not 
a present possession, but a promised inheritance. Still it is part of 
the promise of the covenant, and therefore one of the blessings of 
the baptized. The very commission to admit into the covenant by 
baptism expressed this. 

The Apostles were to make disciples of (μαθητεύσατε) all nations 
(Matt. xxviii. 19). The Gospel was to be preached to every creat- 
ure. He that so believed it as to be baptized, was to be saved ; 
he that disbelieved and rejected it, was to be damned (Mark xvi. 
15, 16). Salvation then was promised us to follow on belief and 
baptism ; where plainly we must understand, not eternal life, but 
the way to life — a state of salvation. So it is said that “the Lord 
added to the Church daily such as should be saved” (rods σωζομέ- 
vovs): the Lord, that is, brought into His Church by baptism all 
those who were being saved, or placed in the way of salvation. 
And so St. Peter says, that, like the ark of Noah, “ baptism doth 
now save us” (1 Pet. iii. 21). In all such passages (and many 


Sxc. IL] OF BAPTISM.  —_— 


might be added looking the same way) baptism is declared to be a 
saving ordinance: salvation appears to be attached to it. Yet it is 
evident, from the whole tenor of Scripture, that the title to such sal- 
vation is defeasible ; that the promise of eternal life, though sure on 
God’s part, may be made of none effect by us ; so that, “‘a promise 
being left us of entering into His rest, we may come short of it.” 

Yet thus we see that, as we are admitted to covenant by baptism, 
so baptism has the promise, 1, of pardon ; 2, of spiritual aid; 3, of 
everlasting life. 


III. The Ark then, into which we are thus admitted by baptism, 
is the Church. The Church is the great company of baptized 
Christians, the number of those who are within the covenant. 

Here we have another relation to consider ; the baptized not only 
embraces the covenant, but he is formally grafted into the Church. 
Now the Church in Scripture is called, 1, the Body of Christ; 2, 
the Household or Family of God; 3, the Kingdom of Heaven. 

1. Christians therefore by baptism are made members of the 
Body of Christ. 

St. Paul tells us, that the Church is one Body of which Christ is 
the Head, and all Christians the different members (1 Cor. vi. 15, 
xii. 12-27. Eph. iv. 15, 16. Col. ii. 19). “ Ye,” he says, address- 
ing the whole Church of Corinth, “ are the Body of Christ, and 
members in particular” (1 Cor. xii. 27). And he shows us how we 
become members of that Body, when he says, ““ By one Spirit are 
we all baptized into one Body ”’ (1 Cor. xii. 13). By a very simi- 
lar figure our Lord calls Himself the Vine, and His disciples the 
branches ; and as St. Paul tells us that the Body of the Church 
derives strength and vigour from the Head (Eph. iv. 16), so our 
Lord says that the branches of the Vine derive life and nourish- 
ment from the Vine (John xv. 1-8). Yet it is plain enough that, 
in both the Lord’s and His Apostle’s teaching, it is not meant that 
none but the devout believer can be a member of Christ; for St. 
Paul reasons with the Corinthians against causing divisions in the 
one Body, and so losing the blessing of belonging to it (1 Cor. xii.) 
and against making their bodies, which are members of Christ, to 
become members of an harlot, and so liable to be destroyed (1 Cor. 
vi. 18-20). And our blessed Lord explains to His hearers, that 
those branches of the true Vine which do not bear fruit, or do not 
abide in Him, shall be cast forth and withered and burned (John 
xv. 2, 6). 

Another expression of Holy Scripture, concerning the union of 


636 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


the Christian to his Saviour, is especially applied by St. Paul to 
baptism: ‘ As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have 
put on Christ,” (Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, put on Christ as a garment). 
And again, referring to his favourite figure of the Head and the 
Body, he tells the Christian Church that they are complete, * in 
Him, which is the Head of all principality and power: in whom _ 
also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands” 

. “buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with 
Him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
Him from the dead” (Col. ii. 10-12. Comp. Rom. vi. 8, 4). 

On such authority it is that the Church has ever taught its chil- 
dren to say, that in baptism they were made “ members of Christ ; ”’ 
that is, members of that mystical Body of which Christ is the 
Head, and to which He communicates grace and strength, as the 
head communicates vigour to the body, or the vine sends forth life 
and strength into its several branches. 

The question, which has been raised, whether this union be real 
and vital, or merely formal and federal, seems altogether inadmis- 
sible. It is plainly real and life-giving, except the fault of the indi- 
vidual renders it ineffectual. The branch grafted into the Vine is 
really united to it; yet it may fail of deriving life fromit. Though 
it die, it will still be a dead branch. Then, indeed, it may be, that 
its attachment to the Vine cannot be strictly called vital union. 
Yet all the language of our Lord and of St. Paul shows, that the 
members of Christ, the branches of the Vine, are really privileged 
to draw life and strength from Him, and may surely receive that 
life and strength, unless they reject or disregard it. (See John 
xv. 4. Eph. iv. 16, 17. Col. ii. 18,19). If they reject or disre- 
gard it, they will then, but by their own fault, lose the benefit of 
membership, and in the end be cut off (John xv. 6). 

2. The Church is also called the Household or Family of God 
(Gal. vi. 10. Eph. ii. 19; iii, 15). 

Accordingly, when persons are baptized into the faith of Christ, 
they are said to be made children of God; and that, by right of 
their union with Christ, who is the true only-begotten Son of God. 
Thus the Apostle tells us, that all who have embraced the faith of 
the Gospel are made children of God; because they put on Christ 
in baptism. ‘Ye are all the children of God by the faith in Jesus 
Christ (διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ, Ἰησοῦν : for as many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ” (Gal. iii. 26, 27. 
Compare iv. 5). 

Hence the Church says, that in baptism we are made, not only 


Sec. IL] OF BAPTISM. 637 


‘members of Christ,”’ but also “children of God.” Baptism is 
the seal of our adoption. We are brought into God’s family, God’s 
household, the Church; and thus “ to all, who receive Him, does 
Christ give power to become the sons of God” (John i. 12). Yet 
here again we must make the same reservation. Though the bap- 
tized have a covenanted title to be God’s children, and hence are 
permitted to approach Him as their Father; there is nothing which 
says that they shall not be prodigals, that they shall not even ‘ go 
astray from the womb,” and so lose all the privileges and blessings 
of sonship. As there may be an union to the true Vine, which, 
because the branch draws not its own nourishment, ends in cutting 
off and casting into the fire; so there may be a sonship, which 
leads only to disinheriting. 

If the privileges vouchsafed in baptism be profited by, the son- 
ship will be real, living, lasting. If the privileges be neglected or 
despised, the sonship will become but nominal, and to be done away. 
For, “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they” only are 
the true “sons of God” (Rom. viii. 14). ‘In this the children 
of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever 
doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his 
brother” (1 Johniii. 10)... 

3. The Church is called a kingdom, “ the kingdom of heaven” 
(Matt. ii. 2; v.19, ἄς. ἅς.) It is the spiritual reign of Christ 
upon earth; the Israel, of which He is the King. 

Accordingly, all Christians by baptism are admitted into the 
earthly kingdom of Christ ; and “except a man be born again of 
water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into this kingdom ” (John 
iii. 5). The baptized then are the subjects of Christ here. They 
may prove rebellious subjects, and so be cast out of the kingdom, 
but still they are enrolled among His subjects; and if they are 
faithful, they shall continue His subjects in the eternal kingdom of 
His glory. 

Nay! this right results to them from another title, namely, that 
they are sons. “If children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint- 
heirs with Christ”? (Rom. viii. 17). And so the Church, having 
taught us that we are “ children of God,” teaches us also, that we 
are “inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.” We are “" begotten 
again to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that 
fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us” (1 Pet. i. 8,4). Yet 
heirs may be disinherited. The inheritance is sure; but the heirs 
may be prodigal. And, as the branch may wither, and the child 
may be an outcast, so the heir may be cut off, and the inheritance 
never be attained. 


688 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


4, There is one more character of the Church to which we 
may refer, namely, that it is set apart to be a temple of the Spirit 
of God. 

St. Paul describes the whole Church as “ fitly framed together, 
growing into an holy temple in the Lord ;” and speaks of individ- 
ual Christians, as ** builded together ” in it, so that the whole should 
become “ an habitation of God through the Spirit ” (Eph. ii. 21, 22. 
Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 5). So again, he calls the whole Corinthian 
Church “ the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. vi. 16). Hence 
the individual Christian, when brought into the Church, becomes a 
portion of that sacred building, which is’ consecrated for the Spirit 
to dwell in. 

But moreover, St. Paul speaks of Christians as in like manner 
set apart to be individually God’s temples; and urges this upon 
them, as a motive why they should keep their bodies holy, and 
not pollute them with sin; lest they should defile the temple of 
God, and be destroyed for desecrating so sacred an abode. “ Know 
ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God 
dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall 
God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are ” 
(1 Cor. iii. 16, 17). ‘ Flee fornication... .. What, know ye not 
that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you ?” 
&c. (1 Cor. vi. 18, 19). 

This seems to teach us, that, as the whole Church is God’s 
temple, so every member of the Church is consecrated to be a 
temple of the Holy Ghost, —as a member of Christ, so a temple of 
the Spirit. But, as unholiness will defile the member of Christ, 
and spoil the blessedness of membership, so sin will pollute the 
temple of God, and bring destruction, rather than salvation, on 
such as walk after the flesh, not after the Spirit. The Holy Ghost, 
if not repelled, will come and dwell with, and sanctify every mem- 
ber of the Church; but if dishonoured, not only may He take His 
flight, but the guilt will be aggravated by the holiness of the 
heavenly Visitor, thus driven from His dwelling-place. 


IV. We come, lastly, to speak of what has been most com- 
monly called the special grace of baptism, namely, Regeneration or 
the new birth. 

We have indeed anticipated the consideration of this already. 
If by baptism we are all made “" members of Christ, children of 
God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven,” then are we new- 
born in baptism; for therein we are joined to Christ, cut out of 


eS a a ns a, ee eS ee oe 


Src 111] OF BAPTISM. 689 


the wild olive-tree, and grafted into the good tree, born into the 
Church, into the family of God, as children of our Father which 
isin heaven. Moreover, if then the Spirit of God becomes our 
assured guest and present help, the first germ of spiritual life must 
be ours: and this is all that is meant by new birth. 

The theology of later days, among the Zuinglians and Cal- 
vinists, but still more among the Arminians, has attached a 
different sense to regeneration; identifying it with conversion or 
renovation, and denying its existence, except in such persons as 
attain to a state of true sanctification. Enough has already been 
said in the way of definition. It is merely needful here to show, 
that as Scripture assigns certain graces to baptism, so it speaks of 
those graces under the name of regeneration. In John ii. our 
Lord especially seems to refer to the Jewish language concerning 
the baptism of proselytes. Of them the Jews were wont to say, 
that at their baptism they were born. anew, and had entered on a 
new life. So our Lord says of proselytes to the Gospel or King- 
dom, that “‘except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (ver. 5). And when 
Nicodemus expresses his astonishment, our Lord says, “ Art thou a 
master in Israel, and knowest not these things?” (ver. 10): as 
though the language of his own nation and of the masters in it 
might have taught him some understanding of the words of 
Christ. The Calvinistic divines haye followed the Zuinglians, in 
denying that baptism is here alluded to at all. They think, that, 
by ‘‘ water and the Spirit,” we must understand only “ the Spirit 
which washes as with water.”! But it is a strong argument 
against this interpretation, which is brought by Hooker, and was 
before him admitted by Zuingle,? that “of all the ancients there is 
not one to be named, that ever did otherwise expound or allege 
the place than of external baptism.”’® ‘ When the letter of the 
law hath two things plainly and expressly specified, water and the 
Spirit; water, as a duty required on our parts, the Spirit, as a 
gift which God bestoweth; there is danger in presuming so to 
interpret it, as if the clause which concerneth ourselves were 
more than needeth. We may by such rare expositions attain 
perhaps to be thought witty, but with ill advice.” 4 

Confirmatory of the meaning of these words of our Lord is 
that expression of St. Paul where he speaks of us as ‘saved by 
the washing of regeneration,” λοῦτρον παλιγγενεσίας, (Tit. iii. 5) ; 


1 Calvin. Jnstitut. 1v. xvi. 25. 8. Hooker, Bk. v. sect. 58. 
2 Opera, Tom. 1. fol. 60, De Baptismo. * Ibid. sect. 59. 





a ee ee —————— ee 


640 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


a passage which, like the last, the whole ancient Church understood 
of the laver of baptism. 

So much has been said already concerning our becoming chil- 
dren of God, clothed in Christ, and members of Christ, — concerning 
our being buried with Christ and rising again with Him, — con- 
cerning our being baptized into the Church by the Spirit of God, 
(see Gal. iii. 26, 27. Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. 1 Cor. xii. 13), all 
bearing on the subject of our new birth, that it is scarcely 
necessary to do more than again refer to such expressions here, in 
confirmation of the just cited passages, which distinctly speak of 
being born again in baptism.} 

I have purposely delayed this part of the subject to the last; 
because here we meet with the chief difficulty and the greatest 
diversity of opinions. Many, who perhaps will concede that bap- 
tism admits to covenant with God and to the Church of Christ, 
and therefore to a participation in the blessings of the covenant, 
namely, remission of sins, the aid of the Spirit, and the promise of 
eternal life, will yet refuse to call these blessings by the name of 
regeneration. To them that name bears.a deeper signification. 
It implies renovation of the whole man, or, in the school-language, 
an infused habit of grace. We so naturally identify the thing 
signified with the name by which we have been used to signify it, 
that we almost as readily part with a truth, as with the word by 
which we have known that truth. It is like the name of one dear 
to us, dear almost as the bearer of that name. 

At all events, then, let us understand, that it is the word in 
which the difference lies, rather than the substance. Let us 
remember, that regeneration is itself a figure of speech. I do 
not mean, that the birth of the Spirit is an unreality. God 
forbid! it is as real as, if not more real than, natural birth. But 
when we call it a birth, or regeneration, we adopt natural images 
to express spiritual truths. In figures there is always a likeness, 
but not an identity, between the image and that which it represents. 
Now the term or figure, regeneration, has been applied in various 
languages to many things. We saw that the Jews applied it to 
the manumission of a slave, to the conversion and reception into 


1 We may especially compare St. sequent on such doctrine is, “If ye be 
Paul’s teaching, that we are buried with risen with Christ, seek those things which 
Christ, and raised again with Him in are above” (Col. iii. 1). St. Peter’s is, 
baptism (Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii, 12), with ‘Laying aside all malice, &c., as new- 
St. Peter’s teaching, that “ God hath be- born babes desire the sincere milk of the 
gotten us again to a lively hope by the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet 
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”’ ii. 1, 2). 

(1 Pet. i. 8). St. Paul’s exhortation con- 


Sec. IL] OF BAPTISM. 641 


their Church of a proselyte. Heathens too have used like terms, 
to express initiation into their mysteries, and the like. But it is 
obvious, that a much greater change than any of these takes 
place in the condition of a person who is grafted into the Christian 
Church, pardoned of his sins, and with the grace of the Spirit 
' bestowed to quicken him. And hence, with great propriety, such a 
persou may be said to be new-born. However, the fathers often 
used glowing terms of the blessings thus given to the baptized ; 
so that it might be easy to suppose that with them regeneration 
signified far more than this, and involved of a certainty newness 
of life and sanctification of heart. The schoolmen followed to its 
consequences the language which had been used by their prede- 
cessors ; making it to include an entire eradication of original cor- 
ruption, and an infused habit of holiness in the heart. Thus the 
term ‘+ regeneration” came to signify far more than its original 
force implied ; and hence Zuingle, and after him the Calvinists, 
and still more strongly the Arminians, adopting the scholastic 
view of regeneration, saw clearly that such an extent of grace 
was not the grace of baptism, and were so led to deny that regen- 
eration took place in baptism at all, and to assign it to a different, 
and generally subsequent, period of life. 

No little difficulty again may probably have arisen from want 
of observing that the figure, regeneration, may not unreasonably 
have a twofold significance. For first, it may be used of the time 
when the new-creating grace is bestowed upon us, secondly, it 
may be applied to the hearty reception of that grace by the subject 
of it, and to the springing up and growth of it in his heart and 
life. So, the person baptized may be said to be new-born, because 
the quickening Spirit is given to him ; and yet, afterwards, the same 
person may be called unregenerate, because the life of the Spirit 
(rejected and uncultivated) has never grown up in him. This we 
have already seen in the language of St. Paul. In one place he 
says, we are all made children of God by being baptized into the 
faith of Christ (Gal. iti. 26, 27). In another, that only they can 
truly be called sons of God, who are led by the Spirit of God 
(Rom. viii. 14). 

Does not the very same reasoning explain the often objected 
language of St. John? He it is who records the discourse in 
which the Lord Jesus tells us that a man must “ be born again 
of water and of the Spirit,” — a passage which all antiquity ex- 
pounded of the new birth of baptism. Yet he too tells us, that 


**he who is born of God sinneth not” (1 John iii. 9); and that 
81 





642 ᾿ς OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL. 


faith is the evidence of new birth; for that “he that believeth 
that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John v. 1). He too 
tells us, that in ‘this the children of God are manifest, and the 
children of the devil; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not 
of God, neither he that loveth not his brother” (1 John iii. 10). 
The distinction between the one and the other set of passages 
seems still the same—the distinction namely between the germ 
and the expanded blossom — between the principle calculated to 
produce holiness, and the actual renewal and sanctification of the 
heart. 

We may add, that the ditferent objects in view in the different 
passages explain the difference in the use of terms. Our Lord 
was instructing Nicodemus how a man must first come to Him 
and be admitted into His kingdom; and so He points out to him 
baptism by water, to be accompanied by its covenanted grace of 
God’s Holy Spirit. St. John, on the contrary, was plainly com- 
bating the errors of certain heretics, who prided themselves on 
their Gnosis or illumination, and who claimed to be born of God, 
though neglecting holiness and the fruits of the Spirit. The 
Apostle therefore tells them, that real new birth showed itself in a 
renewal of the heart, that a sound faith and an active obedience 
manifested the true sons of God, and that to pretend to know God, 
and yet not to keep His commandments, was to act the part of a 
liar and dissembler (1 John ii. 8, 4, 6, 22; iii. T-10, 24; iv. 2; 
v. 1, 2, 4). 

It is said, probably with justice, that the past tenses, used by 
St. John, show that he meant to speak, not only of those who had 
once been regenerate, but of those who yet retained their new life 
of the Spirit, and had not fallen away from it by sin.’ Yet it 
seems to me, that, apart from all questions of graminatical nicety, 
it may be correct enough to admit the doctrine of regeneration in 
baptism, in the acceptation already expounded ; and yet, to say 
that regenerate Christians, true children of God, live a life of faith, 
overcome the world, and keep themselves by the Spirit from the 
commission of wilful sin. And this will exactly explain the 
language of St. John: and will furnish an unfailing key to those 
passages which seem to differ with each other, because some speak 
of us as born anew in baptism, whilst others deny the grace of 


regeneration to any but such as walk after the Spirit, and live the 
life of the Spirit. 
Le. g. πὰς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Jerome, and reflections upon it, may he 


Θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν ob rowi.—1 John iii. 6. found under Art. xv1. 
The exposition of this passage by St. 


Src. IL] OF BAPTISM. 643 


V. Some objections considered. 

The chief objections which have been made to the statements of 
the Church concerning baptismal grace, apply to an imaginary view 
of the subject, rather than to that stated in the foregoing pages. 

1. On the hypothesis that ‘ regeneration” always means a 
real change or renovation of the moral character, a conversion of 
the heart from sin to godliness, it is urged that such grace cannot 
be given in baptism. As a matter of fact, we see a large pro- 
portion of baptized infants growing up with no sign that their 
natural corruption has been subdued, and a new heart created 
within them. If all the change, that is to be looked for in our 
souls, be such as we see daily exhibited in the life of the baptized,’ 
then we must sadly dilute and explain away the language of the 
Scriptures concerning the new birth, the new creation, the regen 
erate and converted soul. The belief that this language applies 
merely to what takes place in baptism, is calculated to lower our 
standard of Christian holiness and our estimate of the effects of 
the operations of the Spirit. In our actual experience we know 
that many mere formalists have taken shelter under the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration, satisfied to believe that all the neces- 
sary change had passed upon them then, and that they need look 
for no more. 

I am fully prepared to go all lengths with those who would 
protest against such mere heartless formalism as this. But such 
protest applies to a totally different view of the doctrine of baptism 
from that which has been taken above. It is a most important 
truth that, if we would enter into the kingdom, we must undergo 
a great moral change of heart and nature ; and it is most true, 
that many have grown up from baptism, and gone down to the 
grave, without ever undergoing such a change. Such (as has been 
already observed) are practically unregenerate. Still they may 
have had given them all the grace which has been above defined 
to be the grace of baptism. Yet, though God made good His 
promise, they may never have embraced it. He may, at baptism, 
have received them to His Church and favour, and have bestowed 
on them the grace of His Spirit. Yet they may never have re- 
sponded to the grace, never have yielded to the influence, and so 
never have profited by the aid of the Spirit. Though grafted into 
the Vine, they drew no life from it. They were dead branches, 
and in the end were to be burned. 

Still the grace which they derived from their baptism may be 
eorrectly called regeneration ; because, if it had been accepted, 


644 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


instead of being rejected, it would have gone on springing up in 
them, as a well of life. The new creation, like the natural creation, 
is progressive. Strong men are first helpless infants. A particular 
period must be fixed, as the moment of birth. None can be so 
truly pointed out, as that when first by covenant the Spirit is given, 
and the soul is counted in Christ, and not in Adam. Now that 
period is baptism. It is the starting-post of the Christian race ; 
the seed-time of spiritual growth; the moment when the Spirit 
of God breathes into the nostrils the breath of life. Yet it by no 
means is meant, that the race always is run, because he who should 
run it is at the starting-post; nor that the seed grows up, because 
it is then sown; nor even that the infant quickens into life, be- 
cause God’s Spirit is there to kindle it. And if it be so, still it is 
but the first beginning of life. The new creation goes on through 
life. It is first the seed, then the blade, then the ear, then the 
full corn in the ear (Mark iv. 28). Thus Luther, whilst admirably 
stating his views of baptismal grace, observes, that the grace of 
baptism is not a thing transient and confined to the moment, but 
which, if cultivated, remains and renovates through the whole 
course of life. 

If then a person has been baptized, but still remains with his 
carnal nature unrenewed ; we are not to conclude that God was 
unfaithful, though the man has been unfruitful. But we are still 
to look upon that person as practically unregenerate ; and we 
ought to try to bring him to conversion of heart, to a real change 
of soul and spirit. We may indeed still hope, that God’s Spirit, 
promised in baptism, will be ever ready to aid him, when he does 
not continue obstinately to resist. But we must look, that ‘* Christ 
should again be formed in him,’ — that he should “ be converted 
and become as a little child,” before we can pronounce that he is 
a true son of God. It has been the custom of the Church to call 
such a change, when wrought after baptism, not regeneration, but 
conversion or renewal; but the practical effect is the same: namely, 
that at conversion that change is really and practically wrought 
upon the soul, which actually was not produced at baptism, but 
which, except for his own fault, would have been wrought by the 
Spirit assured to the baptized.? 

1 De Sacramento Baptismi, Op. Tom. 1. only one that ever was “sanctified from 
p. 72. The marginal heading is Baptis- his mother’s womb.” Nor would our 
mus durat per vitam. Lord have said concerning children, that 

2 We must not, however, deny that “ of such is the kingdom of heaven,” if 
true renovation or conversion is at times peer. were never both the subjects of 


the immediate effect of God’s grace given 8. renewing grace, and themselves 
in infancy. John the Baptist was not the obedient to that grace. Too generally, 


Sec. Π.] OF BAPTISM. 645 


2. Another objection is drawn from the Calvinistic scheme. 
Baptismal grace is supposed to contradict the doctrine of final 
perseverance. The Calvinistic scheme teaches, that grace is always 
irresistible, and that grace once given always abides. The soul. 
once in a state of grace, is always in a state of grace. If therefore 
grace was given at baptism, it can never fail. 

The most rigid form of Calvinism might make this inevitable. 
Yet very high predestinarians have thought otherwise. Augustine 
held that persons might be predestinated to grace, but not to per- 
severance ; nay, that they might be ordained to persevere for a 
time, yet not to the end. Calvin himself does not seem to have 
held his doctrine of perseverance so rigidly as to make it impos- 
sible that God should give some degree of aid to such as reject 
it. At all events, many, who have followed him a great way in 
his predestinarianism, have believed that grace might be given in 
baptism, yet rejected and forfeited by sin. Of such was our own 
Hooker, and many other of our most eminent divines. It has 
been already shown, that the more extreme and exaggerated forms 
of the doctrine of final perseverance are not sanctioned by our 
own formularies, nor, it is believed, by the word of God. (See 
Art. XVI.) 

8. A third objection is, that all the promises of God are to faith; 
that it is by faith we embrace Christ, and through faith receive the 
Spirit of God; that therefore to make baptism the means of re- 
ceiving grace, is to put it in the place of faith. 

It is undoubtedly true that an adult should not come to baptism 
without faith ; and that, if he comes in an unbelieving spirit, he 
cannot expect to find grace in the Sacrament. But the objection, 
to the extent to which it has been urged, would magnify the office 
of faith beyond all reason, and utterly beside the teaching of Serip- 
ture. It cannot be that faith is requisite before any grace can be 
given ; for it is quite certain, that there can be no faith unless 
grace has first been given to generate faith. Otherwise we are in- 
evitably Pelagians. ‘The natural man receiveth not the things 
of the Spirit of God.” Therefore, it is quite clear, that there 
must be some quickening from the Spirit, before there can be any 
faith. To magnify faith, so as to make it essential to the first 
reception of grace, is to take away “the free gift of God.” If 


alas! the dew of God’s Spirit is early lives of God’s servants ; some whom we 
wiped from the heart. But there have ourselves have been privileged to know 
been many pious men, who have grown and esteem. 

up from childhood in the faith and fearof | 1 See his statements under Art. xvi. 
God; many of whom we read in the 


_work of God.” 


. Statement. 


646 OF BAPTISM. 


God cannot give till we believe, His gift is not free, coming down 


(Arr. XXVIL 


‘from the bounty of Him “who giveth liberally and upbraideth 
not,” but is attracted (that we say not merited) by our faith. 


Besides, this would go near to damn all infants. They cannot 
have faith. Yet unless they be regenerated, they are not within 
the promise of eternal life (John iii. 3,5). This is Calvin’s argu- 
ment against impugners of infant baptism. Infants, he contends, 
must be capable of regeneration, though they are not capable of 
faith ; else they could not receive purgation from innate corruption. 
‘“* How,” ask they, “" can infants be regenerate who know neither 
good nor evil?” We reply, ““ God’s work is not of none effect, 
though not down to our understanding. It is clear, that infants 
who are saved, must first be regenerate. For, if they beat a cor- 
rupt nature from their mother’s womb, they must be purged of it 
before entering God’s kingdom, where nothing entereth, polluted, 
or defiled.”’ 1 

Luther, who of all men spoke most earnestly of the importance 


of faith and its office in justifying, uses. still stronger language in 
condemnation of this opinion. 


He complains, that Papists and An- 
abaptists conspire together against the Church of God, “* making 
God’s work to hinge on man’s worthiness. For so the Anabaptists 
teach, that baptism is nothing, unless the person baptized be believ- 
ing. From such a principle,” he says, ‘ it needs must follow that 
all God’s works are nothing, unless the recipient be good. Bap- 
tism is the work of God; but a bad man maketh that it is not the 
We may add, though not subscribe to, his vehe- 
ment conclusion, ** Who sees not in such Anabaptists, not men pos- 
sessed, but demons possessed by worse demons ?”’ ? 

4, A fourth objection is as follows. In the case of adults it is 
admitted that baptismal grace will not be bestowed on such recipi- 


1 Institut. rv. xvi. 17. Simeon’s views of baptism do not appear 


2 Preefatio in Epist. ad Galat. Opera, 
Tom. v. p. 271. 

One school of divines amongst us is 
supposed to insist very much on this 


“necessity of faith, as though without it 


God could not act. Iam sure the better 
instructed and more pious among them 
would shrink from any such extreme 
Let me instance the justly 
venerated names of Cecil, Scott, Wilber- 
force, Simeon. ‘They, and such as they, 
may have used language unlike the 
Church’s language on holy baptism, but I 
feel no doubt they would have repudiated 
the language which Luther, in the text, 
gg as the arguments of the Anabap- 

ts. ΤῸ speak of one of them; Mr. 


to have been very distinctly propounded. 
Perhaps he varied a little in his views 
at different times. I hardly see any dif- 
ference between many of his statements 
and my own. In his Sermons on the Holy 
Spirit, indeed, he asserted that “ Bap- 
tism was a change of state, but not a 
change of nature;” but this probably 
meant no more than a denial that bap- 
tism necessarily involved an acival morai 
change, a real internal renovation; for 
in his sermons on the Liturgy he has 
expressed himself in terms almost as 
clear in favour of properly explained 
baptismal grace as any of the Fathers 
or Anglican reformers could have used. 
—See Excellency of the Liturgy, Sermon 11 


Sec. 111 OF BAPTISM. 647 


ents as come in an unbelieving and impenitent spirit. But if there 
be already repentance and faith, there must be already regenera- 
tion, and therefore regeneration cannot be given in baptism. 

Here again the misunderstanding results from difference of defi- 
nition. The Church calls the grace of baptism by the name of re- 
generation, for reasons already specified; but she does not deny 
that God may work in the souls of men previously to their bap- 
tism; nay! she does not deny that there may be true spiritual life 
in them before baptism. But that spiritual life she does not call 
the new birth, till it is manifested in the Sacrament of regeneration. 
We must remember that the terms new birth and regeneration are 
images borrowed from natural objects, and applied to spiritual ob- 
jects. In nature, we believe life to exist in the infant before it is 
born, —life too of the same kind as its life after birth. Nay! if 
there be no life before it is born, there will be none after it is born. 
So, the unbaptized may not be altogether destitute of spiritual life ; 
yet the actual birth may be considered as taking place at baptism ; 
when there is not only life, but life apparent, life proclaimed to the 
world ; when the soul receives the seal of adoption, is counted in 
the family of God, and not only partakes of God’s grace and’ mercy, 
but has a covenanted assurance and title to it. 

5. One more objection we may notice. It is said that Sacra- 
ments and all outward ordinances are but the husk and shell: the 
life of God in the soul is the kernel and valuable part of religion. 
Let us regard the latter, and then we may throw the former away. 

But we may reply, that He who has made the kernel, has made 
too the husk and the shell. In the natural creation, He has or- 
dered that no seed shall grow to maturity if the husk and shell are 
untimely stripped off from it. If we have a treasure in earthen 
vessels, we may not rashly break the vessels, lest the treasure be 
lost. In God’s kingdom of nature, he has created for man a body 
as well as a spirit; we must not think to insure the life of the spirit 
by disregarding and despising the body. Such conduct seems pre- 
cisely that of Naaman the Syrian, who refused to bathe in the 
waters of Jordan, as seeing no natural virtue in them to heal his 
leprosy. But had he persisted in his refusal, he would have re- 
turned to Syria a leper as he came. It was not the waters of Jor- 
dan that healed him: it is not the water of baptism which heals us. 
But God appointed both them and it; and to despise His appoint- 
ment may be to forfeit His grace. 

6. There is indeed one difficulty which I cannot solve, which 
Scripture has not solved. How is it, that if God’s Spirit is given 


648 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


to every infant baptized, some profit by the gift, and others profit 
not? It cannot be that God is faithful to His promise in one case 
and not in others. Nor again, can we believe that there is some 
inherent merit and excellence in the one child, but not in the 
other. This is one of the deep things of God, — of the secret things 
which belong to the Lord our God. Why one heart responds to 
the calls of grace, one steadily resists them, we inquire in vain. If 
we gain a step in the inquiry, we only find a new inquiry beyond 
it. The Calvinistic theory cuts the knot; but it leaves harder 
knots uncut. It is safer to admit the difficulty, — to acknowledge 
the impotence of our own intellects to disentangle it, — and humbly 
to rest satisfied with adoring, reverent, trusting, patient faith, We 
may feel assured concerning our God, that, though clouds and 
darkness are round about Him, yet righteousness and judgment are 
the habitation of His seat. 





Section II].— HISTORY. 


ie has generally been considered, that on the doctrine of baptis- 

mal grace the testimony of primitive antiquity is more than or- 
dinarily clear, uniform, and consentient. A very high esteem of 
the Sacraments pervades the writings of all the fathers, and is 
especially apparent in their respect for baptism. The controversies 
of later days, of course, had never arisen. Many of the early 
writers were rather eloquent rhetoricians, than accurate reasoners. 
We may therefore expect to find extreme and exaggerated state- 
ments. Yet such language (allow what you will for it) is the in- 
dex to something more solid than itself. It would never have been 
used concerning things of little moment, or low estimation.! 


1 Ihave been induced to enter more 
fully into the question of the patristic 
doctrine of Baptism than I should other- 
wise have done, owing to the doubts 
which have lately been thrown upon it 
vy various writers, and especially by Mr. 

aber, in his Primitive Doctrine of [ δ ἐς 
eration. Whatever comes from Mr. Fa- 
ber deserves consideration. There is 
one arguinent which appears of weight 
in his treatise, namely, that the fathers 
ever identify baptism with circumcision. 
Yet the careful reader will observe that 
rere passage from the fathers which 
Mr. Faber adduces to this purpose, speaks 
of circumcision as a type of baptism, not 


as identical with baptism. We have al- 
ready seen that the fathers distinguished 
between the Sacraments of the old Tes- 
tament and those of the new. “ The 
sacraments of the new Testament give 
salvation; those of the old Testament 
promise a Saviour” (August. Jn Ps. Lxxiii. 
Tom. rv. p. 769, quoted under Art. xxv.) 
The same distinction is constantly re- 
ferred to: “The former carnal cireum- 
cision is made void ; and a second spirit- 
ual is assigned” (Cyprian. Testimon. 1. 
8.) “No other advantage attended on 
circumcision, except that by it the Jews 
were distinguished from other nations, 
But our circumcision, I mean the grace 


Sec. 1Π.] OF BAPTISM. 649 


The most obvious example of this is to be found in the fact, that 
the fathers ordinarily call the Sacraments themselves by the name 
of the grace of the Sacraments. Thus baptism is perpetually called 
regeneration or illumination ; not the Sacrament of regeneration, 
but simply regeneration. So the Eucharist is called the Body 
and Blood of Christ. And again, to be regenerated is used for to 
be baptized. All this is without qualification. And if these ex- 
pressions stood alone, we should naturally infer that the primitive 
Christians believed the grace of the Sacraments to be inseparably 
tied to the Sacraments, and to be wrought by them ez opere operato. 
Happily, however, abundant testimonies exist, to prove that they 
esteemed unworthy recipients partakers of the Sacrament, but not 
partakers of its life-giving power. This has already appeared by 
what was said on the subject under Article XXV. It is very 
difficult to convey a correct impression of the teaching of four or 
five centuries on such a subject as this, by the quotation of a few 
isolated passages. I will endeavour to exhibit it, as well and as 
honestly as I can, in the small space which must necessarily be al- 
lotted to it. And, I believe, we shall see every reason to conclude 
that the fathers held that conversion of heart did not accompany 
baptism, when unworthily received, or not duly profited by; but 
that they did hold that remission of sins and the grace of the Spirit 
were promised to accompany baptism, and that that grace, if yielded 
to and cultivated, would regenerate and new create the soul. Hence, 
they assigned the name of regeneration to the Sacrament to which 
regenerating grace was promised ; and sometimes, no doubt, they 
spoke as if regeneration were tied to that Sacrament. Yet still we 
shall see that, when they explained themselves accurately, it always 
appeared that the Sacrament did not work ex opere operato; but 
that the effect was to be attributed to God’s Spirit acting, according 
to covenant, on the soul, when the soul did not harden itself against 
His grace. | 

We may remember then, that Ignatius calls baptism the Chris- 
tian’s arms,’ meaning probably, that, as the Christian at baptism 
enlists as Christ’s soldier, so then he is furnished with armour from 
above to fight in His service. We may remember also the strong 
statement of Barnabas, or the writer under his name: ‘“* We de- 


of baptism, has a healing free from pain, 
procures us myriads of good things, and 
fills us with the grace of the Holy Spir- 
it” (Chrysostom, Homil. xu. in Genesin. 
quoted by Bishop Beveridge on this 
Article). It may well be doubted wheth- 
er one single passage from the fathers 
82 


can be found, in which circumeision is 
made of the same force as baptism, or in 
which any legal ordinance is placed on 
a level with the Sacraments of the Gos- 


pel. 
1 Ad. Polyc. c. 6, quoted under Art, 


ΧΧΥ. 


650 OF BAPTISM. 


scend into the water full of sins and pollutions, and ascend out of 
it full of good fruits.” 1 So Hermas speaks of our “life being saved 
by water ;”’ * and again he says, ‘* Before a man receives the Name 
of the Son of God, he is destined to death; but when he receives 
that seal, he is freed from death, and delivered to life. That seal 
is water, into which men descend bound over to death, but ascend 
out of it assigned to life.” ® Justin Martyr, professing to give to 
the heathen emperors an account of the Sacraments and ordi- 
nances of the Christian Church, thus describes to them the rite of 
baptism: “* As many as are persuaded and believe that what we 
teach is true, and undertake to lead lives agreeable to the same, 
are brought by us to a place where there is water, and are regen- 
erated, after the same manner of regeneration in which we our- 
selves were regenerated; for they are washed in the water, in the 
name of the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour 
Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost.” * The reason of this, he 
says, is that, as in our first birth we, without our own knowledge, 
and of necessity, were born in sin, ‘*so we should no longer re- 
main children of necessity and ignorance, but become children of 
choice and knowledge, and should receive in the water remission 
of all our former sins.” ὅ 

Irenzus, in like manner, puts regeneration as a synonyme of 
baptism, — ‘‘ baptism, which is regeneration to God.” ® So, when 
speaking of the commission given by our Lord to baptize, he says, 
“ Committing to His disciples the power of regeneration, He said to 
them, Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them,” 7 &c. Accord- 
ingly, he speaks of infants as born anew by Christ to God.’ Yet, 
on the other hand, he appears not to have esteemed the mere re- 
ception of baptism as a proof that there would be newness of life. 
It was the Sacrament of regeneration, but it would be life-giving, 
only if its grace was cultivated, and so productive of faith. There- 
fore he describes the Christian as by nature like a wild olive-branch, 
which is grafted into a good olive; not losing the nature of the 
flesh, but suffering a transmutation from the carnal to the spiritual 
man. But the good olive, neglected, becomes wild; so the negli- 


(Arr. XXVIL 


1 Epist. Barnab. c. 11; also quoted, 
Art. xxv. 

2 Hermas, Lib. 1.; Vision. 111. c. 8. 

᾿ ἘΝ ἀπ. meee Ix, bebe bdup δι 

πειτὰ ἄγονται ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔνϑα στὶ, 

καὶ τρόπον κιράφασετι ἥδε; ὁ καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ 
ἀνεγεννήϑημεν, ἀναγεννῶνται, κ. τ. Ἅ. - 
Apolog. 1. p. 98. 

δ ἀφέσεως re ἁμαρτιῶν ὑπὲρ ὧν προημάρ- 
τῶ τύχωμεν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι. ---- Apolog. 1. p. 


8 rod βαπτίσματος τῆς εἰς Θεὸν ἀναγεννῆ- 
σεως. --- Lib. 1. c. 18, Edit. Grabe, p. 88. 

7 “Et iterum potestatem regeneratio- 
nis in Deum demandans discipulis, dice- 
bat eis, Euntes docete gentes, baptizantes 
eos,” &e. — Lib. 111 ο. 19, p. 248. 

5 “Omnes enim venit per semetipsum 
salvare; omnes, inquam, qui per eum 
renascuntur in Deum, infantes et 
vulos, et juvenes, et seniores.” — 

11. c. 89, p. 160. 


OF BAPTISM. 651 
gent Christian ceases to be fruitful, and returns to his old condition 
of a mere natural man. He, who does not by faith obtain and 
keep the grafting in of the Spirit, will be but flesh and blood, not 
capable of inheriting the kingdom of God. 

In the time of Ireneus some Gnostic heretics had rejected 
Sacraments on the ground that they were material, and that all 
matter was impure.?. Soon after, we find Tertullian ascribing this 
error to the Cainites.2 Against them he wrote his treatise De 
Baptismo. He begins it thus: ‘“ Happy the Sacrament of our 
water, whereby being cleansed from the sins of our former blindness 
we are made free unto eternal life! .... We, as lesser fish, after 
our IX@Y%, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor are we safe, except 
we abide in the water.”* ‘+ Water first brought forth that which 
had life ; so that there may be no wonder if in baptism the waters 
should be life-giving.” ® ‘Thus the nature of water, sanctified by 
the Holy One, itself also received the power of sanctifying.’’ ® 
«ς Wherefore all waters obtain, after prayer to God, the Sacrament 
of sanctification. For the Spirit straightway cometh down from 
the Heavens above, and is over the waters, sanctifying them from 
Himself ; and they so sanctified acquire the power of sanctifying.” 7 
He shortly afterwards explains his belief, that the Spirit is not 
given in the water, but that in the water the angel cleanses and 
purifies, and prepares for the Holy Spirit, to be given in the im- 
position of hands, which anciently formed a part of the baptismal 
ordinance.’ So, speaking of water flowing from the Rock, he says, 
“If that Rock was Christ, without doubt we see baptism blessed 
by the water in Christ. How great is the grace of water for the 
confirmation of baptism before God and His Christ! Never is 
Christ without water, forasmuch as He Himself is washed in 
water.” Again he calls baptism “ the most holy laver of new 
birth ;”’ 2° and declares that none can be saved without baptism. 


1 See at length, Lib. v. c. 10, p. 413. 
2 Treneeus, Lib. 1. c. 18, p. 91. 
3 De Baptismo, c. 1, 13. 


Src. 1Π.] 


angel in the water, we are prepared by 
the Holy Spirit.” — Primitive Doctrine of 
Regeneration, p. 188. There is nothing 


* Ibid. c. 1. See under Art. xxv. about mere water in Tertullian. What 
5 ς, 8. he means is obvious enough. Alluding 
8 Ὁ, 4, to the stirring of the pool of Bethesda by 
7 De Baptismo. the angel, he considered that water-bap- 


a 


‘Non quod in aquis Spiritum Sanc- tism was appointed for remission of sins ; 


tum consequamur ; sed in aqua emundati 
per angelum, Spiritui Sancto prepara- 
mur.’ —c. 6, conf. e. 7. 

Of the imposition of hands following 
immediately on baptism, and considered 
as a part of it,see under Art. xxv. Mr. 
Faber quotes this passage thus: ‘‘ Not 
that we obtain the Holy Spirit in the 
mere water, but, being cleansed under the 


but that the grace of the Holy Spirit did 
not come upon the recipient until the 
bishop had laid his hands on him. 

9 Ibid. ο. 9. 

190. ἐς Sanctissimo lavacro novi natalis.” 
—c. 20; comp. De Anima, c. 41; Cont. 
Marcion. Lib. τ. ο. 28; De Peenitentia, c. 6. 

ἢ * Preescribitur nemini sine baptisma 
competere salutem, ex illa, maxime, pro- 


652 OF BAPTISM. [Arr. KXVIL 


Yet, on the other hand, very strong as these expressions appear, 
we must judge that Tertullian did not teach the opus operatum ; 
for we find him exhorting the candidates for baptism to prepare 
for it with the most earnest and frequent prayers, fastings, and 
watchings, and with confession of all past sins ; evidently, that they 
might not miss the grace to be expected in it. And to unworthy 
receivers he believed that the Sacrament would be, not the foun- 
tain of life, but the sign of death.? 

The doctrine of Clement, Tertullian’s great contemporary at 
Alexandria, and of Clement’s still more illustrious pupil and suc- 
cessor, Origen, seems to have been just the same. ‘ The Peda- 
gogue,”’ ὁ, 6. Christ, says St. Clement, “‘ forms man from the dust, 
regenerates him with water, gives him increase by the Spirit, and 
instructs him by the Word.” ὃ. ‘ Being baptized, we are illuminat- 
ed; being illuminated, we are adopted as sons; being adopted, we 
are perfected ; being perfect, we are rendered immortal .... This 
work (i. 6. baptism) is called by many names, grace, ‘thimble 
that which is perfect, and the laver. Laver, because by it we are 
washed from sins; grace, because the punishment due to our sins 
is remitted ; illumination, because by it we see that holy and sav- 
ing light, 7. 6. by it we are clear-sighted to behold the Divine ; 
that which is perfect, for what is lacking to him who knoweth 
God?‘ “Our sins are remitted by one sovereign remedy, baptism 
according to the word (λογικῷ βαπτίσματι). We are washed from 
all our sins, and at once are no longer evil. This is one grace 
of illumination,® that a man is no longer the same in manners as 
before he was washed. For knowledge rises along with illumi- 
nation, shining around the mind; and immediately we, who were 
unlearned, are called learners (μαθηταὶ) : this learning having 
at some former time been conferred on us; for it is not possible 
to name the precise time:® for catechetical teaching leads to 


nunciatione Domini, qui ait, Nisi natus ex 
aqua quis erit, non habet vitam.”” — De Bap- 
tismo, c. 10. 

1 ¢, 20. 

2 “ Symbolum mortis.”—De Penitentia, 
c. 6. Seeabove, Art. xxv. ‘l'ertullian’s 
inclination to deny remission to deadly 
sins after baptism (see on Art. xvr. sect. 
1.) originated partly from his high esteem 
for baptism, partly from his own highly 
ascetic temper. 

8 Peedagoy. Lib. 1. 6. 12, p. 156, line 18. 

μ Tid. Li ‘Lib. 1. 6. 6, 113, line 27. 

δ φωτίσματος --- this Β & common name 
for Bhar goo among all the fathers. 

οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔχοις εἰπεῖν τὸν χρόνον. 


Mr. Faber (Prim. Doct. of Regeneration, 
pp. 181, 144) puts this clause in capitals, 
and cites it as proving that Clement did 
not hold God’s grace to be given in bap- 
tism, but at any time before, in, or after 
baptism. The force of his argument, how- 
ever, entirely depends on his having dis- 
sociated the passage from its context ; for 
the context in which it stands exactly 
disproves his position. Clement is ex- 
plaining the great blessings of baptism ; 
but he also explains that catechumens 
were regularly trained for it, and that 
they had reason to expect that their previ- 
ous preparation, with which they came to 
the Sacrament, would be specially 


Sec. III.) 658 


faith, and faith, at the very time of baptism, is instructed by the 
Spirit.” 

It may be remembered that, under Article XXV., Origen was 
quoted as saying, that some, who receive baptism unworthily, re- 
ceive not the Spirit of God with it; as Simon Magus, “ not being 
baptized to salvation, received water, but not the Spirit of God.” * 
Yet Origen distinctly asserted that baptism was ordained for re- 
mission of sins and spiritual regeneration. ‘ Children,” says he, 
“are baptized for the remission of sins.... By the sacrament of 
baptism the uncleanness of our birth is put away ; and therefore 
even infants are baptized... . In the regeneration of baptism, the 
Sacrament is received, that, as Jesus, according to the dispensation 
of the flesh, was purified after His birth by an oblation, so we 
should be purified by spiritual regeneration.” * We have already 
spoken of the error, into which Origen fell, of believing that deadly 
sin after baptism was the sin against the Holy Ghost.* Such a 
notion would have been impossible, had not a very high esteem of 
the blessings of baptism been prevalent when he wrote. 

This brings us to the age of Cyprian. Thenceforth it would be 
far easier to convict the fathers of holding the opus operatum, than 
of doubting that grace was given in baptism. Cyprian himself 
says, ‘ All who come to the Divine laver, by the sanctification of 
baptism put off the old man by grace of the saving laver, and be- 
ing renewed by the Holy Spirit, are purged of the filth of the old 
contagion by a second birth.” ® ‘+ Thence begins the origin of all 
faith, and a salutary entrance to hope of eternal life.’ ® His own 
experience of the blessings of baptism he sets forth in the enthusi- 
astic language of a young convert.’ We perhaps need not attrib- 
ute very much weight to such a glowing picture; for the passage 
was written soon after his baptism ; and Augustine has expressed 
his opinion, that it was in the taste of a young writer, not of a ma- 
tured divine. Cyprian appears to have followed Tertullian in con- 


OF BAPTISM. 


and their faith instructed, Gua τῷ βαπ- 
τίσματι, “ at the very moment of baptism.” 
Bishop Bethell has some good remarks 
in reply to this argument of Mr. Faber. 
Bethell, On Regeneration, pp. 254-260. 
Fifth edition. 

1 Pedogog. Lib. 1. ο. 6, p. 116, line 18. 

2 In Numeros, Homil. 111. num. 1.; In 
Ezechiel. Hom. v1. num. v. cited under 
Art. xxv. 

8 “ Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem 
peccatorum. .... Et quia per baptismi 
sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponun- 
tur, propterea baptizantur et parvuli. ... 
In regeneratione baptismi assumitur sac- 


ramentum et quomodo Jesus secundum 
dispensationem carnis oblatione purga- 
tus est, ita etiam nos spiritali regener- 
atione purgamur.” — Homil. x1v. in Lu- 
cam. 

* See under Art. xv1. sect. 1. 

5 De Habitu Virginum. Oxf. 1682, p. 
108. 

ὁ pistol. uxx111. p. 208. 

7 Ad Donatum de Gratia Dei, cire. init. 


p. 2. 

8 Augustine, De Doctr. Christ. 1v. 14, 
The passage from Cyprian is quoted by 
Bishop Bethell. — Fifth edit. p. 127. 


654 OF BAPTISM. 


sidering chrism, or the imposition of hands, essential to the com- 
pletion of the grace of baptism.’ 

From Cyprian we may pass to the great Athanasius. A few 
words will express his doctrine. ‘He who is baptized, puts off 
the old man, and is renewed, being born again of the grace of the 
Spirit.”’ 2 

It is natural, on this subject, to turn with much interest to the 
works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem ; whose Catechetical Lectures 
were addressed to catechumens preparing for baptism. His pref- 
atory lecture sets forth at once the great blessings of baptismal 
grace, and the great need of duly preparing the mind of the adult 
recipient, lest by unbelief or hypocrisy he should miss the benefit. 
To those who were training for it he says, that already “the sa- 
vour of blessedness was upon them, and they were gathering spirit- 
ual flowers, to wreathe heavenly crowns. The blossoms of the trees 
have budded; may the fruit be brought to perfection.” But he 
adds, that an honest intention was necessary to blessing ; “ for 
though the body be present, yet if the mind be absent, it is of no 
avail.” ® He then goes on to speak of Simon Magus, as brought 
to baptism, but not enlightened ; “ dipping his body in the water, 
but not permitting the Spirit to illuminate him.”’* He therefore bids 
his catechumen to look, ‘not on the bare water, but to salvation 
from the working of the Spirit.””> The blessings, however, of the 
Sacrament, if duly accepted, he rates at the highest value. “ Great 
is the baptism which is set before you. Liberty to the captives; re- 
mission of sins; death of sins; regeneration of the soul; garment 
of light; holy seal, indissoluble; chariot to heaven; delight of 
Paradise ; procuring for us the kingdom ; the free gift of the adop- 
tion of sons.” ® ‘+ Jesus sanctified baptism by being Himself bap- 


(Arr. XXVIII. 


ι See Ep. yxxu1. p. 196; Epist. rxxut. 
p. 207, quoted under Art. xxv. 

Mr. Faber quotes, as of great conse- 
quence to his own theory, the former of 
these passages: ‘Tum demum plene 
sanctificari et esse filii Dei possunt, si 
sacramento utroque nascantur, cum scrip- 
tum sit, Wisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et 
Spiritu,” &e. — Prim. Doct. of Regener. Ὁ. 
δ, He strangely infers that Cyprian 
held water to be one sacrament, and the 
Spirit the other; as though any Divine 
could really call God’s Holy Spirit a 
Sacrament: i. δ. an outward sign of an 
inward grace. So common a book as 
Bingham’s Antiquities will tell us that the 
two sacraments by which Tertullian and 
Cyprian believed regeneration to be be- 
stowed upon us, were water and imposi- 


tion of hands, both then considered parts 
of baptism. — See Bingham, x11. i. 1, 


2'O δὲ βαπτιζόμενος τὸν μὲν παλαιὸν 
ἀποδιδύσκεται " ἀνακαινίζεται δὲ ἄνωϑεν γεν- 
νηϑεὶς τῇ τοῦ Πνεύματος en walves 
tv. ad Serapion. 18. ‘The passage is given 
more at length by Bishop Bethell, p. 311. 

3 Priefat. Catech. 1. 

* Ibid. 

5 Μὴ τῷ ψιλῷ rod ὕδατος πρόσεχε, ἀλλὰ 
τὴ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐνεργείᾳ τὴν σωτηρίαν 
évdéyou. — Catech. 111.2. See Beveridge 
on this Article. 

6 Μέγα τὸ προκείμενον βάπτισμα. aly- 


os 


μαλῶτοις λῦτον" μάτων ἄφεσις " ϑάνα- 
τος ἁμαρτίας " παλιγγενεσία ψυχῆς " ἔνδυμα 
φωτεινόν " σφραγὶς ἁγία ἀκατάλυτος " 6 
πρὸς οὐρανόν " cov τρυφὴ " 


Seo TH] OF BAPTISM. 655 


tized.”1 “By baptism the sting of death is destroyed.”? ‘Thou 
descendest into the waters dead in sins; thou risest again quickened 
in righteousness.” ὃ 

Gregory Nazianzen sums up the blessings of baptism in wor |; 
which bear a striking resemblance to those above quoted from 
Cyril. “ Baptism (τὸ φώτισμα) is the splendour of souls, the change 
of life, the answer of the conscience to God. It is the aid of our 
infirmity, the putting off of the flesh, the following the Spirit, the 
participation of the word, the correction of images (πλασμάτων ἐπα- 
vop$wors), the drowning of sin, the participation of light, the destruc- 
tion of darkness, the chariot of God, the travelling with Christ, the 
confirmation of faith, the perfecting of the mind, the key of the 
kingdom, the change of life, the destruction of slavery, the loosing 
of chains, the conversion of the constitution (συνθέσεως peraroinots), 
the most beautiful and glorious of the gifts of God. . . . It is illu- 
mination, more holy than all other illuminations . . . . It is called 
gift, charisma, baptism, unction, illumination, the clothing of incor- 
ruption, the bath of regeneration, the seal,” * &c. ὅς. Elsewhere 
he speaks, like Cyril, of the need of diligent preparation, and coun- 
sels: ‘ Let the laver wash, not thy body only, but thine image.” 5 
And, in one place, he seems to consider, that all the graces of bap- 
tism might possibly, though not probably, be given before the re- 
ception of the Sacrament, to which the Sacrament itself would then 
be the seal; for of his sister Gorgonia he says, that ‘+ to her almost 
alone baptism was not the gift of grace, but the seal only.” ® 

St. Ambrose in the West, contemporary with St. Gregory in 
the East, calls the dividing of the waters of Jordan by Elijah (where- 
by some of the water must have flowed back toits source) ‘a type 
of the Sacrament of salutary laver; by which infants, who have 
been baptized, are reformed from a state of wretchedness, to the 
primitive state, in which they were created.” 7 

One word more from St. Chrysostom. Comparing God’s pardon 
to us with the pardon granted to criminals by earthly rulers, he 
says, that, if kings were to pardon, and even to invest their offend- 


πρόξενον : υἱοϑεσίας χάρισμα. ---- Catech. 5 Tbid. Ρ. 661. 
Prefat, 10. St. Basil has almost word © καὶ μόνῃ σχεδὸν, i’ εἴπω τόλμησα;, 
for word the same sentence. — Exhortal. σφραγὶς ἀλλ᾽ οὐ χάρισμα ἦν τὸ μυστήριον. 


ad Baptism. Tom. 1. p. 418, — Orat, x1. Tom. 1. p. 188. 
1 Catech, 111. 8. τ “ Significat salutaris lavacri futura 
2 Ibid. mysteria ; per que in primordia nature 
3 Catech. 111. 9: νεκρὸς ἐν ἁμαρτίαις sue qui baptizati fuerint parvuli a malitia 
καταβὰς, ἀναβαίνεις ζωοποιηϑεὶς ἐν δικαιο- reformantur.’? —Comment. in | Evangel. Lue. 
.— Comp. Catech. xx. 4, 5. Lib. 1. ὃ 87. The passage is given more 


. Greg. Naz. Orat. xu. Opp. Tom. 1. at length by Wall, Zefint Baptism, pt. x 
1. 688. Colon. e. 18. 


656 OF BAPTISM. [Arr. XXVIL 


ing subjects with their own royalty, they still could not free them 
from their sins. ‘It is God only who does this; which He will 
accomplish in the laver of regeneration. For His grace touches 
the soul, and eradicates its sins’’ . . . . “As when iron or gold is 
recast, it is made pure and new again; so the Holy Spirit, recast- 
ing the soul in baptism, as in a furnace, consumes its sins, and 
makes it shine with more purity than the purest gold.” } 

If we stopped here, might we not conclude, that the fathers uno 
ore affirm that baptism, rightly administered and duly received, is 
an ordinance appointed by God, in which He promises to receive 
the sinner to Himself, to give Him for Christ’s sake pardon of his 
sins, and to bestow upon him the gift of the Spirit? And, although 
some rhetorical language may obscure their meaning, is it not yet 
clear, that this grace is not to be looked for from baptism, as though 
it worked as a charm, but that baptism is to be diligently prepared 
for, and its grace made use of; and that the unbelieving and the 
hypocrite may receive the water without receiving the Spirit of 
God, enhancing his condemnation, rather than obtaining remission 
of his sins ? 

We have yet to consider the views of St. Augustine. No one 
speaks more fully, no one has a juster claim’ to be heard. Perhaps 
_the greatest of uninspired divines, he has influenced, more than any, 

the opinions of all succeeding generations. The reformers espe- 
cially drank deeply from the fountain of his thoughts. He writes, 
not with the rhetoric of an orator, but with the logic of a thought- 
ful reasoner, and yet with the eloquence of an earnest and devoted 
Christian. 

His predestinarian sentiments may, doubtless, have affected his 
views of baptismal grace. It has been asserted that, in one point 
only, he materially differed from Calvin. Both believed that 
God’s predestination was irrespective of individuals, and to eternal 
life. But Calvin held, that once regenerate a person could never 
finally fall ; and so taught that none but those elect to glory could 
receive regeneration in baptism. Augustine, on the contrary, held 
that all infants are regenerate in baptism ; and therefore, that the 
regenerate may fall away. It has, however, been said that this 
difference is not real, but apparent only; for that, by regeneration 
Calvin meant a moral change of disposition, but Augustine meant 
only a beneficial federal change of relative condition.* 

If we remember what was said of Augustine’s predestinarianism 


. Σ Chrysost. Homil. in 1 Epist. ad 3. Faber, Prim. Doct. of Election, Bk. 1. 
Corinth, Homil. xu. ch, vit. p. 81, &e. 


Se. IL] OF BAPTISM. 657 


(under Arts. XVI. XVII.), we shall see that this statement falls 
short of the truth. We there saw, that St. Augustine distinctly 
taught, not only that persons regenerate in baptism might finally 
fail of salvation, but even that persons might believe, and live for 
some years in a state of piety and godliness, and yet fall away and 
be lost. He distinguished between predestination to grace, and 
predestination to perseverance. He said indeed, that persons 
could not with the strictest propriety be called elect who had not 
the gift of perseverance ; but yet that persons might be baptized, 
regenerate, believing, and for a time persevere — “ that a man might 
live for ten years and persevere for five, and yet for the last five 
fall away and be lost.” ! ‘ We call those elect,” he writes, “" and 
Christ’s disciples, and children of God, because they are to be so 
called, whom we see having been regenerated, living piously ; but 
then only are they truly to be called so, if they continue in that for 
which they so are called.” ? “‘' They were then in a good state, but 
because they did not continue in it, ἡ. e. did not persevere unto the 
end, therefore the Apostle says, they were not of us, even when 
they were with us, that is, they were not of the number of sons, 
even when they had the faith of sons.” ὃ &. He takes the case of 
two godly men: to one perseverance is given, to the other not. 
This is God’s inscrutable decree (inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei). 
One, no doubt, was of the predestinated; the other, not. ‘ Yet 
were not both created by God, born of Adam, made out of the earth, 
and received souls of like nature? Nay! had not both been called, 
and had followed Him that called them? Had not both been justi- 
fied, though before ungodly, and both by the laver of regeneration 
made new creatures?” (utrique ex iniquis justificati, et per lava- 
crum regenerationis utrique renovati). ‘* Whence then,” he asks, 
‘“‘ this distinction ?”’ and he resolves it into the decree of God.+ 

Now here is the great difference between Augustine and Calvin. 
Whatever the latter may have held, the former certainly did not 
hold, that grace inevitably leads to glory. 

With respect to the meaning which Augustine attached to 
the term regeneration as applied to baptism, it is, perhaps, not in- 
correct to say that he held that it was not conversion of heart or 
‘‘a moral change of disposition,” but rather, ‘a beneficial federal 
change of relative condition.” His own words clearly prove that 
he did not believe the necessary consequences of baptism to be con- 


1 See quotations and references under 7? De Corrept. et — § 22, p. 762. 
Art. xvi. sect. 1. Art. Xvit. sect, I.; es- 3 Thid. § 20, p. 7 
pecially De Corrept. et Grat. §§ 16, 20,22; 4 De Dono jaan § 21, Tom. x. p 
De Dono Persev. 1, 19, 21, 32, 33. ° 831. 
83 


OF BAPTISM. 


658 (Arr. XXVIL. 


version of heart, nay, that in infants conversion of heart could not 
be the immediate consequence of baptism. Yet we may venture 
to say, that he was too profound a thinker and too sound a divine 
to have believed that baptism admitted us into a new federal 
relation with God, or, in plainer words, that it brought us into 
a new covenant of grace, without also believing that it made us 
partakers of the blessings of that covenant. He-could never have 
taught, that, under the dispensation of the Gospel, God would 
bring us into a covenanted relationship with Himself, thereby 
saddling us with fresh obligations to obey Him, without also be- 
stowing upon us the power which would enable us to fulfil those 
obligations. 

The view which he takes of the difference between baptized 
and unbaptized infants, clearly shows his high estimation of bap- 
tismal blessing. We need not herein follow his teaching, but it is 
quite certain that he held that all unbaptized infants, if they died 
in infancy, would perish everlastingly ; and, on the other hand, he 
clearly held that if they died in infancy, having been baptized, they 
passed at once into eternal life.? The distinction between the state 
of the baptized and the unbaptized infant he thus clearly marks: 
“6 Τὴ infants, born but not baptized, Adam may be recognized ; in 
infants, born and baptized, and hence born again, Christ may be 
recognized.’ He identifies baptized with believing infants (fideli- 
bus infantibus, id est, in Christo baptizatis); and says of them, 
that, “‘ though infants, they are members of Chiist, partakers of His 
Sacraments, that they may have in them life.”’* When they are 
baptized, nothing less is done than that they are incorporated into 


1 “Quibus rebus omnibus ostenditur 
aliud esse sacramentum baptismi, aliud 
conversionem cordis, sed salutem hominis 
ex utroque compleri ; nec si unum horum 
defuerit, ideo putare debemus consequens 
esse ut et alterum desit; quia et illud sine 
isto potest esse in infante, et hoc sine illo 
potuit esse in latrone, complente Deo sive 
in illo, sive in isto, quod non ex voluntate 
defuisset ; cum vero ex voluntate alte- 
rum horum defuerit, reatu hominem in- 
volvi. Et bapltismus quidem potest inesse, 
ubi conversio cordis defuerit : conversio autem 
cordis potest quidem inesse vou percepto bap- 
tismo, sed contempto non potest.’’ — De Bap- 
tismo contra Donatistas, Lib, 1v. ¢. χχν. ὃ 
82, Tom. 1x. p. 141. 

2“ Absit ut causam parvulorum sic 
relinquamus, ut esse nobis dicamus in- 
certum, utrum in Christo regenerati si 
woriantur parvuli, transeant in seternam 
salutem, non regenerati autem transeant 


in mortem secundam.”’ — le Dono Per- 
sever. ἃ 30, ‘Tom. x. p. 837. 

“Cum videant alios parvulos non re- 
generatos ad aternam mortem, alios au- 
tem regeneratos ad wternam vitam tolli 
de hac vita.”? — Ibid. καὶ 82. 

“Cum moriuntur infantes, aut mer- 
ito regenerationis transeunt ex malis ad 
bona, aut merito originis transeunt ex 
malis ad mala.’’ — De Preedestinat. ὃ 24, 
‘Tom. x. p. 806. 

“* Quia parvulus non baptizatus non 
intrat in regnum celorum, et tu dicis 
et ego.’’ —Serm. 294, c. 7, Tom. vy. p. 
1186. 

8 Tn parvulis natis et nondum bap- 
tizatis agnoscatur Adam : in parvulis na- 
tis et baptizatis et ob hoc renatis a - 
catur Christus.’’ — Serm. 174, ο. 8, Tom. 
v. p. 834. 

Ὁ « Infantes sunt, sed membra ejus 
sunt. Infantes sunt, sed sacramenta ac 


Src. IIL] OF BAPTISM. 659 


the Church, that is, are joined to the Body and members of Christ ; 
and this, he says, is so important, that without it they would be 
damned.!_ However holy their parents may have been, they them- 
selves cannot be free from the taint of original sin, but by baptism.? 
But in baptism it is effected by God’s grace, that all original sin 
is made void. Yet it is not so made void, that concupiscence is 
also destroyed with it, but only so that, if the child dies, it shall 
not operate to his destruction. If, however, the infant lives, and 
grows to an age of understanding and responsibility, he will have 
need to fight against that concupiscence, and, by God’s help, he 
may overcome it, unless he have received God’s grace in vain? 
Those then, who are baptized, receive remission of all their sins.* 
Infants cannot believe, when they are baptized, nor make responses 
and stipulations for themselves. Therefore the response of others 
is sufficient for their consecration.6 In Cornelius, spiritual sancti- 
fication preceded the Sacrament of regeneration ; but in baptized 
infants the Sacrament of regeneration precedes ; and if they hold 
fast Christian piety, conversion in heart will follow, the Sacrament 
of which preceded in body.* But how is such conversion of heart 
to follow? If baptism be a mere outward change, nothing in it 
could give hope of future conversion of heart. Accordingly, St. 
Augustine teaches that, ‘in baptized infants, though they know it 
not, the Spirit of God dwelleth.”7 And again, that “ἃ power is 
given them, by which, from the sons of this world, they may be- 
come the sons of God.” § 

I believe these quotations give a faithful representation of the 
general teaching of St. Augustine on baptism. They are not gar- 
bled extracts; but, on the contrary, if consulted at length, will 


cipiunt. Infantes sunt, sed mens# Ejus 5 De Baptismo c. Donatist. Lib. αν. ¢. 


participes fiunt, ut habeant in se vitam.” 
— Ibid. c. 6. 

1 De Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. Lib. 
c. 4, Tom. x. p. 78. 

2 Ibid. c. 12, p. 88. 

3 “In parvulis certe gratia Dei per 
baptismum .. . id agitur ut evacuetur 
caro peccati. Evacuatur autem non ut 
in ipsa vivente carne concupiscentia con- 
spersa et innata repente absumatur et non 
sit ; sed ne obsit mortuo, que inerat nato. 
Nam si post baptismum vixerit, atque ad 
sxtatem capacem precepti pervenire pot- 
uerit, ibi habet cum qua pugnet, eamque 
adjuvante Deo superet, si non in vacuum 
gratiam Ejus susceperit, si reprobatus 
esse noluerit.””— De Peccat. Meritis et Re- 
miss. Lib. 1. c. 89, Tom. x. p. 89. 

eee Civit. Dei, Lib. 1. ¢. 27; Tom. v11. 
p. 25. 


111. 


24, Tom. 1x. p. 141. 

6 “Tta in baptizatis infantibus pre- 
cedit regenerationis sacramentum; et si 
Christianam tenuerint pietatem, seque- 
tur etiam in corde conversio; cujus 
mysterium precessit in corpore.”— Ibid. 


7 “ Dicimus ergo in baptizatis parvulis, 
quamvis id nesciunt, habitare Spiritum 
Sanctum.”— Epist. 187 ad Dardin. ο. σατι. 
Tom. 11. p. 586. So also, “Δα templum 
Dei pertinent parvuli, sanctificati sacra- 
mento Christi, regenerati Spiritu Sanc- 
to.” — Ibid. ὁ. vi. 684. 

8 “ Frustrata potestate captivatoris 
sui, et data potestate qua fiant ex fil is 
hujus seculi filii Dei.” — De Nuptiis a 
mee Cee Lib. 1. ο. 22, Tom. x. p. 


660 OF BAPTISM. (Art. XXVIL 


be found to give only more fully the same impression of the 
writer’s meaning. Is it not plain then, that his meaning is, as 
nearly as possible, coincident with the doctrine laid down in the 
two preceding sections ? 

He teaches, that baptism is not in itself conversion of heart; 
and of adults he says, that a person may be baptized with water, 
but not born of the Spirit. In infants also, he says, that the 
Sacrament of regeneration precedes conversion of heart. He con- 
siders that the regeneration of baptism consists in a grafting into 
the Church, the body of Christ; a remission of all original sin, so 
that baptized infants dying in infancy are sure of salvation; and, 
moreover, in an assured presence of the Holy Spirit, which, if not 
obeyed, will profit them nothing ; but which, if held fast, and not 
received in vain, will lead, with the opening reason, to that faith 
and conversion in heart, of which, in unconscious infancy, they had 
been incapable. Accordingly, he uses the term “ child of God” in 
a twofold signification. At one time, he speaks of all the baptized 
as regenerate in Christ, and made children of God, by virtue of 
that Sacrament. At another time, he speaks of baptismal grace 
as rather enabling them to become, than as actually constituting 
them God’s children; and says that, in the higher and stricter 
sense, persons are not to be called sons of God unless they haye 
the grace of perseverance, and walk in the love of God.? 

It has very justly been observed, concerning this teaching of 
St. Augustine, that over and above the great value of his own 
judgment and testimony, he appeals to the uniform voice of an- 
tiquity, and declares that, in his baptismal doctrine, he proceeds 
upon principles which from the earliest ages have been admitted 
in the Church.8 


1 He asserts that one of two things 
must be determined: either that adults 
receiving unworthily, like Simon Magus, 
are born of water and of the Spirit, but 
to their destruction, not to their salva- 
tion; or else that the hypocritical, and 
those not converted in heart, must be es- 
teemed to have been baptized, but not 
born of the Spirit. — De Baptismo c. Don- 
atist. Lib. v1. c. 12, Tom. 1x. p. 169. 

2 See the passages quotedabove. See 
also Jn Epistol. Johann. ο. 8, Tract. v1. 6, 
7, Tom, 111. par. τα. pp. 859, 860, where 
he argues that though a man may have 
received the Sacrament of baptism, so 

tathing that it makes a new man 
y remission of all his sins (“ut novum 
hominem faciat dimissione omnium pec- 
catorum ”’); yet if he have not charity, 


he must not say that he is born of God. 
(‘‘ Habeat caritatem : aliter non se dicat 
natum ex Deo.’’) The sons of God are 
distinguished from the children of the 
devil only by charity. Those who have 
charity are born of Those who 
have not charity are not born of God. 

3 “ Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec 
conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum 
est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica trad- 
itum, rectissime creditur.”’ — Lib. rv. ec. 
24, Tom. rx. p. 140. 

On this Mr. Faber remarks: “ Thus 
by this remarkable attestation he becomes 
as it ir) ἐ bere ag in him- 
self.” rim. a) ἧς yay ae’ 
824.) ἰὰ much pained at being obliged 
to express decided dissent from some of 
the positions of Mr. Faber, a writer for 


Sxc. 1Π.1 OF BAPTISM. 


661 


It is needless to trace the chain of fathers beyond St. Augus- 
tine. The scholastic discussions too may have had a sufficient 
interest in themselves, but we have neither need of, nor space for 
them here, and must at once pass to the period of the Reforma- 
tion. 

The Council of Trent declared that in baptism not only remis- 
sion of original sin was given, but also all, which properly has the 
nature of sin, is cut off. In the regenerate there is nothing which 
God hates. Concupiscence indeed remains ; but has not the nature , 
of sin, and will never hurt those who fight against 1.2} As a gen- 
eral principle, the Council decided (Sess. vit. can. vut.), that the 
Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato. 

Luther and the Lutheran reformers are clear and express in 
their assertion of baptismal grace. Luther lays great stress on 
Gal. iii. 27; which he says “is much to be observed against 
fanatical spirits, who lower the dignity of baptism, and speak 
impiously concerning it. St. Paul, on the contrary, adorns it 
with glorious titles, calling it the laver of regeneration and of the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost. And here, he says, all baptized 
persons have put on Christ ; as though he would say, Ye received 
not by baptism a sign or watchword (tesseram), by which you were 
enlisted into the number of Christians, as many fanatics of our day 
think, who make baptism a mere watchword, 7. e. a short and 
empty sign. ‘But as many,’ he says, ‘as have been baptized 
have put on Christ,’ that is, Ye have been snatched from the Law 
into a new nativity, which was effected in baptism. Therefore ye | 
are no longer under the Law, but are clothed with a new garment, 
i. e. Christ’s righteousness. St. Paul therefore teaches that baptism 
is not a sign, but a clothing in Christ, yea, that Christ Himself is 


whom I entertain much respect, and in 


whose writings I have taken great inter- 
est. I believe that his view of the sub- 
ject cannot be so different from that 
which I have taken above, as might at 
first appear. His great argument is that 
the fathers did not believe moral renova- 
tion or conversion of heart to be the ne- 
cessary concomitant of baptism. Of this 
I think there can be no doubt. Mr. Fa- 
ber himself fully admits that “all sin is 
pardoned in baptism ” (p.321). He also 
holds that God’s predestination, as re- 
vealed to usin Scripture, is not, as Ar- 
minians teach, ex previsis meritis ; nor 
yet, as Calvinists teach, to eternal glory ; ; 
but, as the fathers teach, to baptismal 
blessing ; and that all baptized persons 
may, if they will, become elect to glory. 


(See Prim. Doct. of Election, passim.) 
Surely, then, he must consistently hold 
that all baptized persons are entitled to 
the aid of God’s Holy Spirit. I am 
therefore quite at a loss to understand 
him, when I find him stating that infants, 
from original sin, ‘ cannot be worthy re- . 
cipients of baptism... . without an 
antecedent operation to make them wor- : 
thy ” (p. 345). Surely original sin is.. 
not a bar to God’s pardoning merey in 
Christ, nor to the grace of His Spirit, to 
quicken us from such sin. And how to 
believe that an antecedent operation is ‘ 
necessary to make them worthy, except 
on Arminian or Calvinistic i τ I 
cannot imagine. 
1 Sess. v. De Pece. See alsa 

under Art. rx. pp. 244, ue : 


662 OF BAPTISM. fArr. XXVIL 


our clothing. Wherefore baptism is a most potent and efficacious 
rite.”1 To be baptized in God’s name, is not to be baptized by 
man, but by God. Wherefore, though it be done by man’s hands, 
we must believe and hold that it is the work of God.’’? “ God 
Himself honours baptism with His Name, and confirms it with 
His own power (sua virtute).”* * Separated from the Word, it is 
but water. Joined with the Word, it is Christ’s Sacrament.’ 4 
“ The effect of baptism is remission of sins and the gift of the 
Holy Spirit.””® Some had urged, that to ascribe such blessings 
to baptism was to attribute salvation, not to faith, but to works. 
Luther replies, that one of the objects of faith, and one of those 
things on which faith rests, is the grace of God in baptism. Be- 
sides, baptism is not our work, but God’s. On God’s work we 
rely for salvation, not on men’s. And baptism is not the work of 
the bather, but of God.® 

He denies that, in the case of infants, there is any need of 
faith. God’s work is not rendered ineffectual, because they have 
no power to believe.’ The work of God is then begun in the soul ; 
but the effect of baptism is a thing which remains through the 
whole of life. For the mortification of the body of sin, which is 
part of the grace proper to baptism, is a work which we are con- 
stantly to experience through life, till the sin be altogether abol- 
ished, and we rise and reign with Christ.? ‘“ This life therefore is 
a perpetual spiritual baptism, till we die.” “* Baptism is the deluge 
of grace; as Noah’s deluge was the deluge of wrath.”"™ Baptism 
does not take away sin. ‘“ But in it God makes a covenant with 
you.” ‘Immediately from your baptism God begins to renew you. 
He bestows on you His Spirit, and the Spirit begins immediately 
to mortify your nature and sins, and so to prepare you for death 
and resurrection.” ‘* God pledges Himself not to impute to you the 
remains of sin, which still cleave to you, nor to condemn you on 
their account.” % A baptized person may therefore humbly say: 
“1 know my works to be impure and defiled; but I am baptized, 
and I know that God, who cannot lie, has bound Himself to me 
in baptism, not to impute my sins to me, but rather to mortify 
them in me and abolish them.” ® All this, however, on God’s part, 


1 Luther Jn 111. ad αἰαὶ. Tom. vy. p. ὃ Ibid. 
0. 9 Prafat. in Epist. ad Romanos Tam. 


2 Catechismus Major, Tom. v. p. 657. ν. Pp: 100. 

ὃ Thid. 1 De Sacramento Baptism. Tom. τ. p. 
* Thid. 72. 

5 Thid. 1 Thid, p. 72. 

5 Ibid. p. 688. . 2 Ibid. p. 74. 


τ Ibid. p. 689. 18 Tbid. 


Sec. III] OF BAPTISM. 


668 


Luther considers to involve a corresponding obligation on ours, te 
use the grace so assured to us, and to mortify by its help the deeds 
of the body.! 

Zuinglius took a view the exact. opposite to Luther’s, on this 
Sacrament, as on Sacraments in general. He begins by stating, 
that almost all, whoever went before him, from the very times of 
the Apostles, have erred concerning baptism.? He states his own 
opinion to be, that a person who is signed by the sign of baptism, 
promises that he will be a hearer and discip!2 of God, and that he 
will obey His laws. . “If,” he says, “the Sacraments were the 
things they signified, then could they not be signs. For the sign 
and the thing signified cannot be the same. Baptism therefore 
is the sign which binds and initiates us to Jesus Christ.”? ‘ Ex- 
ternal baptism with water contributes nothing to the washing away 
of sin.” 4 To get rid of a difficulty which naturally presented it- 
self, he says that ‘¢ Original sin does not deserve damnation, if a 
person have believing parents. . . . Original sin is a disease, which 
yet is not blomeworthy.i in itself, nor can bring with it the pain of 
damnation . . . . until a person, corrupted by its contagion, trans- 
gresses God’s law ; which then mostly happens, when he sees and 
understands that law.” > Accordingly, he argues for the undoubted 
salvation of infants, baptized or unbaptized.® 

Calvin, in his general view of Sacraments, was in accord neither 
with Luther nor Zuinglius. It is by no means easy to define his 
doctrine of baptism. . Inconsistency is very little his character; yet 
on baptism he appears to have been somewhat incunsistent with 
himself. His peculiar predestinarian system made it difficult for 
him to believe that infants received grace ; because, according to 


1 De Sacramento Baptism. Tom. 1. p. 


dictum esse velim) a scopo aberravisse.”’ 
73. Melancthon speaks exactly like Lu- 


ther: ‘“ Quod Deus approbat baptismum 
parvulorum, hoc ostendit, quod Deus dat 
Spiritum Sanctum sic baptizatis.” — Mel- 
ancthon. Opp. Tom. 1. p. 61. 

“ Sentimus eos (h. e. parvulos) in bap- 
tismo fieri filios Dei, accipere Spiritum 
Sanctum, et manere in gratia tamdiu, 
quoad non effundant eam peccatis actu- 
alibus ea xtate, que jam dicitur rationis 
compos.” — Tom. rv. pp. 664. See Beth- 
ell, On Regeneration, p. 155; Laurence, 
Doctrine of the Church of England on Bap- 
tism: ‘Third edit. p. 89. 

’ 2°“ Tilud mihi ingenue cirea libri ini- 
tium dicendum est : fere omnes eos, quot- 
quot ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus 
de baptismo scribere instituerunt, non 
in paucis (quod pace omnium hominum 


— Zuinglius, De Baptismo Oper. pars 2, 
Tigur. 1581, Tom. 1. fol. 60. 
Ibid. 

4 “«Externus baptismus ergo qui aqua 
constat, ad peccatorum ablutionem nihil 
facit.”” — Ibid. fol. 71. 

5 « Peccatum ergo originale damna- 
tionem non meretur, si modo quis paren- 
tes fideles nactus fuerit. . . . Unde colligi- 
mus peccatum originale morbum quidem 
esse, qui tamen per se culpabilis non est, 
nec damnationis peenam inferre potest 

. . donee homo contagione hac corrup- 
tus legem Domini transgreditur, quod 
tum demum fieri consuevit, cum legem 
sibi positam videt et intelligit.”” — ‘Tom. 
1. fol. 90. 

ὁ Compare his De Peccato Original 
ee Tom, 1. fol. 116, seg. 


664 OF BAPTISM. τς ΓᾺΡ’ XXVIL 


him, grace given was always effectual, not to be resisted, never to 
be lost. Yet his sacramental system led him to teach, that Sacra- 
ments were effectual means of grace, by which God acted on the 
recipient, unless the recipient opposed an impenitent and unbeliev- 
ing heart. If we took only his famous work, the Institutes, (which 
was a youthful production, but from the general principles of 
which he never departed,) we might think his views of baptism 
scarcely higher than Zuingle’s. He argues, indeed, against the 
Anabaptists, that infants must be proper recipients of baptism, 
because they can be saved, and can only be saved by being regen- 
erate; and therefore they must be fit to receive the Sacrament of 
regeneration.!_ He objects to the statement, that baptism is a mere 
badge or watchword (tessera), whereby Christians, like soldiers, 
may be distinguished among men.?__ Yet he seems to make baptism 
little more than a figure or sign of an inward blessing; not a 
means also, whereby that blessing may be conferred. ‘ Baptism 
is a sign of our initiation, whereby we are admitted into the society 
of the Church; that being grafted into Christ, we may be counted 
among the sons of God. Moreover, it was given us, that it might 
serve for our faith with Him, and for our confession before men.” 8 
We must not suppose that water can wash away our sins. St. 
Paul connects the word of life and baptism of water together 
(Eph. v. 26), signifying that the promise of our ablution and sanc- 
tification is brought by the word, and sealed by baptism.‘ Still, 
he says that those who receive baptism with a right faith, perceive 
the efficacy of Christ’s death in mortifying their flesh, and of His 
resurrection in renewal of the spirit; as the branch derives nour- 
ishment from the stock into which it is grafted. Original sin, 
which of itself would bring certain damnation, is by no means abol- 
ished by baptism ; but the elect and believers are assured by bap- 
tism, that the guilt of original sin will not condemn them.® Ana- 
nias, when he exhorted Saul to “arise and be baptized, and wash 
away his sins” (Acts xxii. 16), did not mean that in baptism, or 
by virtue of baptism, sins were remitted; but that by baptism he 
might bave testimony and assurance, that his sins had already been 
remitted.’ As regards infants: the children of faithful parents, 
dying before the age of reason, are certainly saved, whether bap- 
tized or not baptized. Therefore the children of faithful parents 
are not baptized, that they may then first become sons of God, but 


1 Jnstit. 1v. xvi. 17. 5 ry, xv. 5. 
2 Ibid. rv. xv. 1. 8 rv. xv. 10. 
8 Ibid, 7 av. xv. 165. 
# Iv. xv. 2. 


Sec. IIL] OF BAPTISM. 665 


rather are by a solemn sign then received into the Church, because 
by virtue of the promise they already belonged to the body of 
Christ.1_ He denies that John iii. 5, has any reference to baptism ; 3 
and, on the whole, seems to teach, that elect children (among 
whom are all children of the faithful dying before the age of rea- 
son) receive from God the grace of remission and regeneration, 
and therefore are sealed with the seal of baptism, the effect of 
which is not to be confined to the period of baptism, but endures 
throughout life.? 

Here, then, notwithstanding some difference of expression, and 
a material difference about the guilt of original sin,* there is no 
considerable disagreement between Calvin and Zuinglius on the 
grace of baptism. I do not know that Calvin ever retracted any 
of the opinions which he thus expressed. I will not say, that he 
ever materially modified them. Perhaps other expressions, which 
he used afterwards, may be reconciled with all that has just been 
referred to. Yet certainly, in some of his later works, he speaks 
much more favourably of the grace of baptism ; as though, when 
off his favourite system, he were constrained, by the evidence of 
Scripture, to attach more importance to it. In the Catechism 
which he composed for the children of the Church of Geneva, 
(which bears date a. Ὁ. 1545,) he teaches it to be ‘ certain that 
pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in baptism.” > 
It is possible enough, that this Catechism was itself designed for 
the use of (presumed) elect children. It must therefore be read 
with some allowance. Yet, in other of his works, somewhat simi- 
lar statements may be found. In his commentary on the Acts of 
the Apostles (in Acts ii. 38), he says, that we cannot indeed re- 
ceive miraculous gifts, as the Apostles ; yet the promise, “ Ye shall 


1 “ Unde sequitur, non ideo baptizari 
fidelium liberos, ut filii Dei tune primum 
fiant, qui ante alieni fuerunt ab ecclesia ; 
sed solenni potius signo ideo recipi in ec- 
clesiam, quia promissionis beneficio jam 
ante ad Christi corpus pertinebant.” — 
Instit. rv. xv. 22. Comp. £pist. 198. 

2 zv. xvi. 26. 

ὃ See Iv. xv. xvi. passim ; especially 
xvi. 22, xv. 8, &. Comp. 111. iii. 9. 

4 Zuinglius held that original sin would 
not damn any in whom it had not bro- 
ken out in actual sin. Hence that all 
infants, dying in infancy, were saved. 
Calvin held that it was, of its own nature, 
fraught with damnation ; but that, in the 
ease of elect infants, the curse was re- 
versed. 

84 


5 « M. Verum, annon aliud aque trib- 
uis, nisi ut ablutionis tantum sit figu- 
ra? 

“ P. Sic figuram esse sentio, ut simul 
annexa sit veritas. Neque enim, sua 
nobis dona pollicendo, nos Deus frustra- 
tur. Proinde et peccatorum veniam et 
vitz novitatem offerri nobis in baptismo 
et recipi a nobis certum est. 

“Μ. Quomodo per baptismum nobis 
hee bona conferuntur ? 

“ P, Quia nisi promissiones illic nobis 
oblatas respuendo infructuosas reddimus, 
vestimur Christo, Ejusque Spiritu dona- 
mur.” — Cutechismus Ecclesia Genevensis, 
J. Calvino Authore. Calvini Opuscula, 
Genevee. 1552. 


666 OF BAPTISM. 


receive the Holy Ghost,” applies to all ages of the Church, in a 
more exalted sense than any promise of mere miraculous gifts. 
“To baptism therefore the grace of the Spirit will ever be an- 
nexed, unless an impediment from us occurs.” ! Again he says, 
** We must take notice, that no mere figure is proposed to us in 
baptism, but that an exhibition of the thing signified is annexed to 
it; for God never fallaciously promises, but really fulfils, what he 
signifies by figure. But then again, we must take heed not to tie 
God’s grace to the Sacraments; for the administration of baptism 
profits nothing, except where God thinks fit.” ? In another place, 
after bidding us direct our minds in baptism, not to the water, but 
to Christ, he adds: “ But if any one, relying on this, should make 
baptism a mere frigid spectacle, and void of all grace of the Spirit, 
he will be much deceived.” And again he tells us, that in Sac- 
raments the sign is joined with the word; and then there is grace 
received by the faithful. ‘So Christ breathed on His Apostles. 
They received, not only the breathing, but the Spirit too. Why? 
Because of Christ’s promise. So in baptism, we put on Christ, 
are washed with His blood; our old man is crucified, and God’s 
righteousness reigns in us... . Whence so great a power, but 
from Christ’s promise, who effects and makes good by His Spirit 
what He witnesses by His word!” # 

Notwithstanding these statements, which are certainly very dif- 
ferent from those of Zuingle, it is probable that Calvin limited the 
reception of sacramental grace to the elect. There can be little 
doubt that he was not always consistent on this head; yet I think 
it cannot be denied that he did believe some grace to be promised 
in baptism. But then God’s promises he limited to the elect. 
Hence, he probably believed that the elect received an accom- 
plishment of these promises, and therefore remission of sins, and 
God’s Spirit in baptism; but that the non-elect received the sign 
only, without the grace.® 

The followers of Calvin have, for the most part, been purely 
Zuinglian in their views of baptism: not indeed all predestinarians 


(Arr. XXVIL 


1 “ Baptismo igitur semper annexa erit 
Spiritus gratia, nisi a nobis impedimen- 
tum occurrat.” —J. Calvin. Commentar. 
in Act. Apostol. α. ii. v. 88. 

2 Ibid. in c. xxii. 16. 

8 Ibid. c. xi. 16. 

* “Flat Christus in Apostolos : hi non 
flatum modo, sed Spiritum quoque recip- 
iunt. Cur? nisi quia illis Christus pro- 
mittit? Similiter in baptismo Christum 
induimus, abluimur Ejus sanguine, cru- 


cifigitur vetus homo noster, ut regnet in 
nobis Dei justitia. In sacra Coena spiri- 
tualiter Christi Carne et Sanguine pasci- 
mur. Unde tanta vis, nisi ex Christi 
promissione, qui Spiritu suo efficit ae 

restat, qu verbo testatur?”’ — J. 
Jalv. Jn Johann, ο. xx. 22. 

5 “ Neque enim quicquam prodest ex- 
terna baptismi administratio, nisi ubi ia 
τὰν visun est.””—In Act. Apostol, xxii. 
16. 


Sec. IIL] | OF BAPTISM. 667 


since Calvin’s time ; but those who have expressly adopted Calvin’s 
predestinarianism. It may be added, that the Arminians, who 
sprang from the Calvinists, though on one point at least widely 
separated from them, not only agreed with them in their Zuinglian 
view of baptism, but far more decidedly repudiated baptismal grace 
than the Calvinists themselves, calling baptism by the name to 
which Calvin had specially objected, a mere watchword, or badge 
of profession ( Tessera).} ᾿ 
Our own English reformers seem to speak very strongly and 
plainly. It has been said of late, that it is impossible they could 
hold the doctrine that infants uniformly receive remission of sins 
and the assured help of God’s Spirit in baptism, because they were 
all Calvinists. [Ὁ cannot be meant that they were, in all respects, 
followers of Calvin; for such an assertion would be obviously and 
notoriously untrue. The statement probably implies no more than 
that they were predestinarians, 7. 6. believers in an absolute and ir- 
respective predestination of individuals to eternal glory. There is 
very slight, if any, foundation, even for this. Yet allowing it to be 
true, it is by no means a consequence, that Cranmer and Ridley 
must have followed out to its natural conclusions this doctrine 
of irrespective decrees. Calvin did, no doubt, though even he 
appears to have had some misgivings about baptism. But much 
greater men than Calvin held the same doctrine of irrespective 
personal election to glory, but did not follow it out to what may 
seem its inevitable consequences, — for instance, St. Augustine and 
Luther; though the latter appears ultimately to have shunned all 
discussions on predestination. If the English reformers were ab- 
solute predestinarians, it is quite certain that they took Augus- 
tine’s, not Calvin’s view. Now Augustine’s, as has been shown, 
did not in any way influence his baptismal doctrines. There can 
therefore be no propriety in disposing at once of the opinions of 
the Anglican reformers, by saying that they were predestinarians, 
and that they therefore could not but have coincided with Calvin 
on baptism. 
Here, as elsewhere, Cranmer and Ridley must be our great au- 
thorities, because they were the chief compilers both of the Arti- 
cles and the Liturgy. It was their genius which directed the 
Reformation, and their spirit which is infused into its formularies. 


1 “ Baptismus ritus est, quo fideles ** Baptismum non esse lavacrum regen- 
tanquam sacra tessera confirmantur de erationis satis . . . . constare potest.” 
gratiosa Dei erga ipsos voluntate.” — — Ibid. § 10. See Bishop Bethell, p. 


Limborch. Theol. Lib. rv. c. 67, § 5. 171, seq. 


668 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


Cranmer, in 1548, published his Catechism, translated and mod- 
ified from the Latin of a Lutheran divine, Justus Jonas. In that 
Catechism the statements are remarkably like Luther’s. It is 
said, that ““ without the word of God water is water, and not bap- 
tism ; but when the word of the living God is joined to the water, 
then it is baptism, and water of wonderful wholesomeness, and the 
bath of regeneration, as St. Paul writeth.”1 Again, “* We ought 
not to have an eye only to the water, but to God rather, which did 
ordain the baptism of water, and commanded it to be done in His 
name. For He is Almighty, and able to work in’us by baptism, 
forgiveness of our sins, and all those wonderful effects and opera- 
tions for the which He ordained the same, though man’s reason is 
not able to conceive the same. Therefore, consider, good children, 
the great treasures and benefits whereof God maketh us partakers, 
when we are baptized, which be these. The first is, that in bap- 
tism our sins be forgiven us, as St. Peter witnesseth. Let every 
one of you be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins. The second 
is, that the Holy Ghost is given us. . . . according to this saying 
of St. Peter, Let every one of you be baptized in the name of 
Christ, and then ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The 
third is, that by baptism the whole righteousness of Christ is given 
us... . Fourthly, by baptism we die with Christ.”? It is then 
said, that before baptism we cannot have peace or quietness of con- 
science. ‘ But, after our sins in baptism be forgiven us, and we 
believe the promise of God, and so by our faith be justified, then 
our consciences be quieted.” A sinner that is not baptized, “ al- 
though he had the Holy Ghost to this effect to help him to fight 
against sin, yet oftentimes he is overcome and falleth into sin. 

. But when in baptism the righteousness of Christ is given 
and imputed to him, then he is delivered from all those perils. 
For he knoweth for a surety that he hath put upon him Christ, and 
that his weakness and imperfection is covered and hid with the 
perfect righteousness and holiness of Christ.’ Once more, ‘* The 
second birth is by the water of baptism, which Paul calls the bath 
of regeneration, because our sins be forgiven us in baptism, and 
the Holy Ghost is poured into us as God’s beloved children.” ὃ 
“ He that is baptized may assuredly say thus, I am not now in the 
wavering opinion that I only suppose myself to be a Christian man, 
but I am in a sure belief that Iam made a Christian man; for I 


1 Cranmer’s Catechism, pp. 191, 192. a Ibid. pp. 188, 189. 
2 Thid. p. 186. δ Ibid. p. 182. 
* Ibid. p. 187. 


Src. II.] OF BAPTISM. 669 


know for a surety that I am baptized, and I am sure also that bap- 
tism was ordained of God. . . . and the Holy Ghost doth witness 
that he which is baptized hath put on him Christ.’ 1 

So completely is this Luther’s language, that similar statements, 
word for word, may be taken from all parts of his writings. But 
it nevertheless appears exactly to exhibit the sentiments of Cran- 
mer, who adopted it; for the same tone pervades all his subse- 
quent writings; and I know of no single contrary statement, 
though I have carefully read and noted all his remains, with spe- 
cial reference to this doctrine. He attributes no holiness to the 
water itself;? denies the grace of baptism to those who come 
feignedly, ‘who be washed with sacramental water, but be not 
washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ.” ? But as 
to others (infants or worthily receiving adults) he teaches, that 
‘Through baptism in this world the body is washed and the soul 
is washed: the body outwardly, the soul inwardly; the work is 
one ;”’* and that “that doctrine is not to be suffered in the Church 
which teacheth that we are not joined to Christ by baptism.’ ὅ 
‘*‘ As in baptism we must think that, as the priest putteth his hand 
to the child outwardly, and washeth him with water; so must 
we think that God putteth to His hand inwardly, and washeth 
the infant with His Holy Spirit, and moreover, that Christ Him- 
self cometh down upon the child, and apparelleth him with His 
own self,”’ 6 

His great friend and contemporary, Bishop Ridley, calls baptism 
by the name of “ regeneration ;”’* says that ‘‘ the water in baptism 
is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration : 8 that 
‘‘the water in baptism hath grace promised, and by that grace the 
Holy Spirit is given; not that grace is included in water, but that 
grace cometh by water.’ 9 

There was little dispute in England at the time of the Reforma- 
tion about baptism. Most of the passages above cited occur in 
controversy with Romanist divines ; and it is truly remarkable that 
Cranmer, instead of maintaining lower ground than the Romanists 
on baptismal grace, maintains rather higher ground; for the Ro- 
manist divines were inclined to derogate from the dignity of bap- 
tism, in order the more to elevate the importance of the Commu. 


1 Cranmer’s Catechism, p. 184. 6 Ibid. 111. p. 558. See also 11. pp. 
2 Works, 111. p. 490. 802, 340; 111. pp. 65, 118, 171, 276, 490, 
8 Ibid. 11. p. 489. See also 111. pp. 584, 553: 1v. pp. 39-44, 55, &e. 

322, 323. 7 Works, Park. Soc. p. 57. 


+ Iv. p. 89. 8 Ibid. p. 12. 
5 Tbid. p. 42. 9. Ibid. p. 240. 
Ρ 


OF BAPTISM. (Arr. ΧΧΥ͂Π. 


670 


ion.) The most systematic statements are to be found in Cran- 
mer’s Catechism, which, as noticed above, uses the very language 
of Luther. Luther appears exactly to have followed, on this head, 
his great master, St. Augustine. We may therefore naturally in- 
fer, that the sentiments of Cranmer and Ridley were nearly those 
of Augustine. Certain it is, they were not those of Zuinglius nor 
of Calvin. A few quotations can never bring out the full force of 
an author’s meaning. ‘The works of Cranmer are readily to be ob- 
tained. In the notes I have put a considerable number of refer- 
ences. It is easy to turn to them, and each reader may convince 
himself whether the context does not fully bear out the impression 
which the extracts convey. 

If from the reformers who first drew up our services and Arti- 
cles, we turn to those of the reign of Elizabeth, who adopted and 
slightly modified them, we shall find no different language. Jew- 
el’s Apology says, that “* Baptism is the Sacrament of remission of 
sins, and of our washing in the Blood of Christ.”* ‘ We assert, - 
that Christ exhibits Himself truly present in His Sacraments: in 
baptism, that we may put Him on,”® ὥς. In Nowell’s Catechism, 
a work like Jewel’s Apology, to be esteemed semi-authoritative, the 
child is taught thus: “ M@. what is the hidden and spiritual grace 
in baptism ? A. It is twofold: namely, remission of sins and regen- 
eration. ...M. You seem to make the water only a certain fig- 
ure of divine things? A. A figure indeed it is, but by no means 
empty and fallacious ; but such, that to it the verity of the things 
themselves is joined and tied. For, as God truly offers to us in 
baptism pardon of sins and newness of life, so are they certainly re- 
ceived by us. Far be it from us to suppose that God would mock 
us with vain images! M. Do we then receive remission of sins by 
mere outward washing and sprinkling ? A. By no means! For Christ 
alone washes off the stains of our souls with His own Blood. It 
were impious to attribute this honour to an outward element,” * &c. 

If we pass to the formularies themselves, we may begin with the 
Articles agreed on between the Anglican and Lutheran divines in 


1 See this especially in the “ Disputa- 
tion with Chedsey,” Cranmer’s Works, 
lv. pp. 41, 42. 

Latimer has been much referred to, as 
having in one passage denied the con- 
nection between baptism and regenera- 
tion. Archbp. Laurence (Doctrine of the 
Church of England on Baptism, Third 
Edition, pp. 48-45) has shown that Lat- 
imer’s general teaching coincided with 
Cranmer’s. I have not quoted Bp. Lat- 


imer, because there is nothing to con- 
nect him with the drawing up either of 
the Articles or the Liturgy ; and there- 
fore his testimony is no more important 
than that of any other divine of the 


period. 

ὦ Juelli Apologia, Enchirid. Theolog. p. 
127. 

ἃ Thid. p. 129. 


* Noelli Catechismus Enchirid. Theolog 
pp. 814, 815; ef. p. 821. 


Svc. IIL] OF BAPTISM. 671 


15°. In them it is said, that “‘in baptism remission of sins a « 
the grace of Christ is offered to infants and adults . . . . that infants 
in baptism attain remission of sins and grace, and become children 
of God, because the promise of grace and life eternal extends not 
only to adults but also to infants... . But because infants are 
born with original sin, they need remission of that sin, and this is 
so remitted that its imputation is taken away. Howbeit the cor- 
ruption of nature or concupiscence remains in this life, although it 
begins to be healed, because the Holy Spirit, even in infants, is ef- 
ficacious and cleanses them.” ! If we refer to the Articles of 1536, 
the Bishops’ Book, a. p. 1537, and the King’s Book, a. p. 1548, 
we shall find them all agreeing to teach, that ““ infants by the Sac- 
rament of baptism receive remission of sins, the grace and favour 
of God, and be made thereby very sons and children of God ;”’? 
that “the effect and virtue of this Sacrament is forgiveness of sins 
and grace of the Holy Ghost ; ᾿ ὃ. that infants, “ being offered in 
the faith of the Church, receive forgiveness of their sins, and such 
grace of the Holy Ghost, that, if they die in the state of their in- 
fancy, they shall thereby undoubtedly be saved.” 4 

The First Book of Homilies is the earliest public document of 
the reign of Edw. VI. In the “ Homily of Salvation” (Part I.) 
it is stated, ‘‘ that infants, being baptized and dying in their infancy, 
are by this sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to God’s favour, 
and made His children, and inheritors of His kingdom of heaven ;” 
and that “‘ we must trust only in God’s mercy and the sacrifice... 
offered on the cross, to obtain thereby God’s grace and remission, 
as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed 
after our baptism, if we truly repent.” 

The Second Book of Homilies was not published till the reign of 
Elizabeth, yet it now is united with the First; and we may there- 
fore quote them together. In a former Article we saw that bap- 
tism and the Supper of the Lord were described as the two Sacra- 
ments having “ visible signs, whereunto is annexed the promise of 
free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in 
Christ.” ὅ The ‘“ Homily of repairing of Churches” says of the 


1 « Et quod per baptismum offerantur 
remissio peccatorum et gratia Christi, in- 
fantibus et adultis. . . . et quod infantes 
per baptismum consequantur remissi- 
onem peccatorum et gratiam, et sint 
filii Dei, quia promissio gratiz et vite 
ewterne pertinet non solum ad adultos, 
sed etiam ad infantes .... Quia vero 
infantes nascuntur cum peccato originis, 
habent opus remissione illius peccati, et 
illud ita remittitur ut reatus tollatur, 


licet corruptio nature seu concupiscen- 
tia manet in hac vita, etsi incipit sanari, 
quia Spiritus Sanctus in ipsis etiam 
infantibus ‘est efficax et eos mundat.”’ — 
See Cranmer’s Works, tv. pp. 279, 280. 

2 Formularies in the Reign of Henry 
VIII. pp. xix. 7, 98. 

ὃ Tbid. p. 253. 

* Ibid. p. 254. 

5 Hom. of Common Prayer and Sacra- 


ments. 


eas .ὄ . 


672 OF BAPTISM. ‘[Art. XXVIL 


Church, that “ The fountain of our regeneration is there presented 
unto us.” The ‘ Homily of the Passion,” that ‘* We be therefore 
washed in our baptism from the filthiness of sin, that we should live 
afterward in the pureness of life.” 

The next authoritative document, after the First Book of Homi- 
lies, was the First Service Book of Edw. VI. This was compiled 
in the same year (1548) that Cranmer’s Catechism was put forth. 
The Baptismal Service in that Book differs from our present ser- 
vice for infant baptism, in that the latter lacks some of the ceremo- 


- nies which were retained in the former. The doctrinal statements 


(if prayers can be said to contain statements) are the same. It is, 
however, desirable to postpone the consideration of these till the 
last. Yet one portion of the First Service Book we must not omit. 
It is the Catechism. Here we have (drawn up by Cranmer and 
set forth in the same year with his larger Catechism already cited) 
all the portion of our present Church Catechism, down to the end 
of the Lord’s Prayer. The latter part, concerning the Sacraments, 
was not added till after the Hampton Court Controversy, in the 
reign of James I., more than fifty years later. The teaching in 
the earliest questions, however, was, as it still continues: ‘* Who 
gave you that name? My godfathers and godmothers in my bap- 
tism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and 
an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” The child is taught to 
call this “a state of salvation,” and to speak of himself as ‘ sancti- 
fied by God the Holy Ghost,” like “all the elect people of God.” 

Immediately before the Catechism in the First Service Book 
there is a rubric, which now stands in the baptismal service, to the 
following purport: “It is certain by God’s word, that children 
being baptized, if they depart out of this life in their infancy, are 
undoubtedly saved.” ! These were the principal public documents 
put forth at the period of the Reformation, in which baptism is 
treated of, with the exception of the Articles, and the services for 
Infant Baptism. Let us then next take the Articles. These were 
published a. p. 1552, four years after the First Service Book and 
Cranmer’s Catechism, and the same year as the Second Service 
Book. Those Articles which treat on baptism, were not altered in 
the reign of Elizabeth. 

Besides the Article on Baptism itself, one or two expressions 

1 Archbishop Laurence (Doctrine of adopted the opinions of the later fathers 
Church of England on oy - 98) and of the schoolmen, that all unba 
Toca, of sem from the Reformatio tized infants must inevitably pe h. 

, ἃ document drawn up by Cran- “ Quod longe secus habere judicamus, 


mer, which most satisfactorily shows are the words used. See also Laurence, 
that the English reformers by no means B. L. p. 70. 





Sx. III] | OF BAPTISM. 673 


occur in the earlier Articles, Thus, in that on original sin (now 
the IXth), we read in the English, “although there is no condem- 
nation to them that believe and are baptized.” In the Latin the 
word rendered “baptized” is renatis, “born again.” And the 
Article “ Of Christ alone without sin” (now the XVth) says: 
“ All we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ.” 
In both these there appears an identification of baptism and regen- 
eration. 

To proceed to our present Article, the XXVIIth. It is diffienlt 
(0 find any exact model on which it is framed. It bears little 
resemblance to any former Article, in any other confession, either 
English or foreign. It is evidently penned with considerable cau- 
tion. It begins with a denial of the Zuinglian notion, that “ bap- 
tism is a mere sign of profession or mark of difference.” It con- 
tinues, that it is “‘a sign of regeneration or new birth.” So far, 
however, its statement is not much. more than Zuinglius’s. But 
then it adds, “whereby, as by an instrument, they, who receive 
baptism rightly, are grafted into the church; the promises of for- 
giveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the 
Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed.” The concluding words 
of the paragraph contain considerable difficulty. ‘* Faith is con- 
firmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God,” vi divine in- 
vocationis. The Latin and the English do not correspond, and ap- 
pear to convey different ideas. The former would indicate that the 
invocation of God, which accompanies the act of baptism, confirms 
faith and increases grace. The latter would imply, that the pray- 
ers of the congregation might, over and above the ordinance of 
God, be blessed to the recipient’s soul, so that, whereas he migh* 
receive grace by God’s appointment, whether prayer accompanied 
baptism or not ; yet the addition of prayer was calculated to bring 
down more grace and to confirm faith. Whence the confusion 
sprang, if such it were, it may be hard to say. The Latin and 
English have both authority; but one does not explain the other. 
Perhaps they rather supply than explain each other. 

The Articles then speak the same language as the other formula- 
ries of our Church, on the subject of baptismal grace. Yet it has 
been truly observed, that the Article which expressly treats of 
baptism speaks less distinctly than any other authorized document, 
and is more easily explained away. Why this should have been 
is not apparent. The primate, and his coadjutor Ridley, perpetu- 
ally, both before and after the publication of the Articles, expressed 


their own views in strong and unmistakable language. 70 is cer- 
85 


674 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


tain that the bishops and clergy in general were not more dis- 
posed to Zuinglian doctrines than the primate; but, on the con- 
trary, were rather more favourable to Romanism and doctrines 
verging on Romanism. The Article could not therefore have been 
softened to please them. It is not impossible, that the king him- 
self, young as he was, may have had some leaning to the Swiss 
reformers, and that to please him, and perhaps to satisfy some 
foreign divines, a certain degree of mabigeity may have been ad- 
mitted, 

We must remember, that the office for Infant Baptism was put 
out nearly at the same time with the Articles, that it was enjoined 
by the same authority, that it is of equal obligation on the clergy, 
and of still greater interest to the laity of the Church. Its mean- 
ing has been a fertile source of trouble in the present century. 
Yet, if fairly considered, its sense can scarcely be ambiguous. 

It perhaps would be conceded that, if the sentiments of the re- 
formers were clearly known and fully established, the natural sense 
of the service would be no longer doubtful. We have had copious 
extracts from their works ; and their own doctrine has been given 
in their own words. Most of their statements must have concern- 
ed infant baptism ; for so little was adult baptism known in their 
day, that no office for adult baptism was appointed till nearly a 
hundred years after them. We know that they speak of infants 
as regenerated in baptism. The only questions which can occur 
are these: Did they believe all baptized infants to be regener- 
ated, or only some? And, if so, what did they mean by regen- 
eration ? 

A considerable number of men, whose piety forbids us to doubt 
their honesty, suppose that the reformers believed some, but not 
all, infants to be regenerated in baptism. Such persons therefore 
say, that the well-known strong expressions in the baptismal ser- 
vice must be interpreted with some reservation. They adopt the 
notion of a charitable hypothesis. The Church charitably hopes 
that a particular child may be regenerate, and therefore fearlessly 
expresses its conviction that he is regenerate. In special confir- 
mation of this theory, they adduce the office for Adult Baptism, 
where nearly the same expressions are used, and where it is im- 
possible to be sure that regeneration is bestowed ; for confessedly 
to adults grace is given only when there is sincerity and faith. 
To this they add the Burial Service ; where we give God thanks 
for taking our departed brother out of this world, evidently on the 
charitable supposition that he is fit for a better. 


Sec. IIL] OF BAPTISM. 675 


Now it is quite plain that the office for Adult Baptism cannot 
explain the office for Infant Baptism; for this reason. The office 
for Adult Baptism was not drawn up till a hundred years after 
that for Infant Baptism, ¢. 6. in the reign of Charles II. It was 
so worded as to be as like as possible to the more ancient office 
for infants ; and as few alterations as could be were adopted. An 
cffice drawn up A. ἢ. 1661 cannot interpret one drawn up in 1552. 
Or if it be supposed that the bishops of 1661 were likely to under- 
stand the language of their predecessors in 1552, then we may 
listen to their explanation of the office for Infant Baptism, the 
strong terms of which were objected to by the puritans. ‘ Seeing,” 
say these very bishops, who compiled the office of Adult Baptism, 
“that God’s Sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth 
not ponere obicem, put any bar against them (which children can- 
not do), we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that 
it is regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit ; and the denial of it tends 
to anabaptism,” ! ὅς. 

The Burial Service does not seem a case in point. There is 
there no positive assertion of the certainty of the individual’s bliss, 
as there is of the certainty of the infant’s regeneration in the bap- 
tismal service. Concerning the individual, we indeed give thanks 
that God has “ been pleased to deliver him from the miseries of 
this sinful world.” But, as regards his resting in Christ, we only 
say,'**as our hope is this our brother doth.” The expression, “ in 
sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life,” is a gen- 
eral proposition, affecting all men, and not specially the individ- 
ual. The very words then of the Burial Service express plainly 
a charitable and comfortable hope. Those of the baptismal service, 
on the contrary, contain a positive assertion, and a consequent 
thanksgiving. The one therefore cannot explain the other. 

But is it in any manner likely that the reformers should have : 
intended a charitable hope, where they express an undoubting con- 
fidence? ‘The belief that some were regenerate in baptism, and | 
others were not, was, to say the most of it, a perfectly new notion 
in their day. The fathers believed all infants to be regenerate ; so 
did the schoolmen; so did the whole medizval Church; so did 
Luther and the Lutherans. Zuingle and the Zuinglians, on the | 
contrary, believed that no one was regenerate in baptism; with 
them baptism was a mere outward sign. With Calvin and his 
followers originated the idea that the elect might receive grace, 
but the non-elect be left unblessed, in the Sacrament of baptism. 


1 Cardwell’s Hist. of Conferences, p. 356. 


676 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


It is quite certain that, early in their career, our reformers could 
have known nothing of this theory. It was not until late, that 
they had any connection whatever with the Calvinistic divines. 
But if, at any period in their lives, they obtained from Geneva a 
perfectly new light on the subject of infants receiving baptismal 
grace, is it not most strange that their writings should exhibit no 
trace of this? From 1536 to 1555 we have their documents and 
disputations. The same tone and statements, concerning baptism 
and the grace of baptism, prevail from first to last. In the Arti- 
cles of 1536, in the Bishops’ Book of 1537, in the Articles of 1538, 
in the King’s Book of 1543, in Cranmer’s Catechism, the Baptismal 
Service, the Church Catechism of 1548, in the Second Service 
Book and the Articles of 1552, in the Answer to Gardiner 1551, 
and the Disputation with Chedsey 1554, exactly the same general 
assertions occur. ‘There is nothing said about αὐ infants, still less is 
anything said about excluding any. Unworthy adults are excluded, 
but infants never. Is it not most probable that the utter silence 
concerning the inclusion of all, or the exclusidn of some, resulted 
from the fact that Calvin’s theory, which is not very apparent 
even in his own published works, had never been brought to their 
notice? that they therefore used the ordinary language of those 
who went before them, speaking in the general of infants as the 
subjects of the grace of God, and not caring to specify all, because 
not dreaming that some could be excluded?? In fact, their own 
sentiments, to any one who will fairly examine their writings, must 
seem plainly to have been these. All men, infants as well as elders, 
are subject to original sin, and as such, subject to the wrath of God. 
But all too are subjects of the redeeming love of God. He would 
have all to be saved. He freely offers pardon and grace to all. 
Thus, even of unbaptized infants we may hope that they shall share 
the blessings of the atonement, and dying in infancy, shall be saved 
from the curse of sin. But baptism is God’s special ordinance for 
bringing them into covenant with Him. Of those infants there- 
fore who have been baptized, we do not hope, but we know, that 


! It will be remembered that Calvin's 
difficulty was this. His theory was, that 
grace was never given but irresistibly, 
and once given, never was withdrawn. 
Hence, if given to an infant, it must, 
sooner or later, renew his nature, and 
save his soul. Hence, again, if grace 
was ἔραν: in baptism, the child must be 
saved. The estinarians before him 
had not this idea. Augustine, and prob- 
ably all πο φρεσίν from him to Cal- 
vin, held that grace might be bestowed, 


but not profited by. Hence God’s Spirit 
and aid might be given to an infant, but 
he never grow up the holier for it, be- 
cause he resisted and quenched the 
Spirit; and even if he were renewed at 
first, if not predestinated to perseverance, 
he might fall away. Unless it can be 
proved, that our reformers had adopted 
Calvin’s theory of irresistible grace and 
final perseverance, it cannot be 

that they should have entertaired his 
difficulties about baptism. 


Sxc. IV.] OF BAPTISM. 677 


as they are partakers of the covenant of grace, so they are partak- 
ers of the assurance of pardon, and moreover have a right to those 
graces of the Holy Spirit, which, if cultivated, as they grow up, 
will surely new-create in them a sanctified nature, mortifying and 
destroying their old and corrupt nature, and making them sons of 
God indeed. Hence, as they are by baptism entitled to regener- 
ating grace, we do not scruple to use the language of Scripture 
and antiquity, and to call them, regenerate in baptism. Yet we do 
not thereby intend that original corruption is quenched in them, 
or that their whole moral disposition is changed; but only, that 
they are new-born into the Church, that their sin of nature is not 
imputed to them, and that they have an assurance of that spiritual 
aid, which, if not hindered, will renew, convert, and restore them. 

It will be no small confirmation to the belief that this was their 
sentiment concerning baptism, if we learn that the model on which 
their baptismal services were formed was not Calvinistic, nor 
Zuinglian; but Lutheran. Archbishop Laurence has shown that, 
on the subject of our formularies in general, there was much cor- 
respondence between the English and the Lutheran divines.! But 
it has been proved, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the sources 
of our present office for Infant Baptism were, first, the Service in 
common use in the medizeval Church, and still in the Church of 
Rome ; secondly, a formulary adopted by Luther for his own fol- 
lowers in Germany; thirdly, a Service composed by Melancthon 
and Bucer for the use of the Archbishop of Cologne, which was 
itself adapted from the ancient Liturgy of Nuremburg.? This fact 
directly associates our own formularies with those, first of the an- 
cient Church, secondly, of the Lutheran reformers. The parts of 
the more ancient services which were deemed superstitious, such 
as chrism and exorcism, were omitted. But the doctrine involved 
is evidently the same as that held by Luther and Melancthon ; 
who, it has been seen, followed and symbolized with St. Augus- 


tine. 





Section I[V.—INFANT BAPTISM. 


ΝΟ much space has been occupied on the earlier part of this 
Article, that the latter part must be very briefly considered ; 


1 See Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, 2. Appendix to Laurence’s Doctrine ὁ, 
passim. the Church of England on Baptism. 


678 OF BAPTISM. [Arr. XXVIL 


especially as some of what has been already said may bear on the 
question of infant baptism. 

We have already traced the analogy between circumcision and 
baptism. The latter indeed excels the former, as the new cove- 
nant excels the old; but both were alike initiatory rites, the means 
of entering into covenant with God, and the seal of that covenant. 
If children could be admitted into the covenant of works, why not, 
a fortiori, into the covenant of grace? If, before they knew good 
from evil, they were capable of being bound by an obligation to do 
good and to renounce evil, and that without the assurance of 
quickening grace, how can they be incapable of admission to the 
promises of pardon, to the offer of life eternal, to the mercy and 
love of Him “ who came to seek and to save that which was lost?” 
In that case, the blessings of the old covenant, instead of being more 
limited, must have been more extended than those of the new ; 
and the Law, which was given by Moses, must have been more 
merciful than the grace and truth, which came by Jesus Christ. 
The parallel too is the more exact, if we remember, that to adults 
circumcision was “the seal of the righteousness of faith”? (Rom. 
iv. 11) ; and so was not given to Abraham, till he had believed. 
But this prerequisite in adults was no prerequisite in infants. The 
infant children of the Israelites, and of the converts to Judaism, 
were all circumcised, though they could bave no faith to qualify 
them. 

We saw, in a former Section, that not only circumcision, but 
baptism, was practised among the Jews; and that, when they ad- 
mitted proselytes into their communion, they not only circumcised 
all the males, but baptized all, male and female, infant and adult.’ 
When therefore our Lord sent out His disciples to “ make prose- 
lytes of all nations by baptizing them” (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. 
βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς, Matt. xxviii. 19), He addresses persons, who had 
been ever used to the mode of proselyting, or admitting of prose- 
lytes, which He commanded ; and, as they had always seen infants, 
as well as adults, baptized for such proselytism, they could only 
have understood that they too were to practise infant baptism. 
Unless therefore there were a special bar put upon such a practice, 
our Lord’s words naturally implied that the practice was accord- 
ing to His will. The omission to specify infants is only analogous 
to the omission of commands to perform other obvious duties which 
were well understood before, and which the first teachers of Chris- 
tianity took naturally for granted. 


1 See Lightfoot on Matt. iii.; Wall, Jnfant Baptism, Introduction, quoted in sect. 1 


Sze. IV.] OF BAPTISM. 679 


The necessity of baptism has constantly been inferred from our 
Lord’s declaration, ““ Except a man?! be born of water, and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John iii. 5). 
But the same supreme authority declared too concerning infants, 
that “of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark x. 14). If so, they 
must be capable of baptism, both by water and the Spirit. Other- 
wise, one would think, they cannot be capable of entering into that 
kingdom, which is said specially to appertain to them. The whole 
of our Lord’s teaching, on that occasion, when infants were brought 
to Him, seems to show, as plainly as possible, the propriety of 
infant baptism. If young children ought to be brought to Christ, 
and He has peculiar pleasure in and love for them, then can 
there be no possible reason why we should keep them from the 
Sacrament of His love. It may be said that we thereby bind 
them, without their own consent, to obligations which they might 
be unwilling to contract. But every human being, created by 
God, and redeemed by Christ, is, baptized or unbaptized, bound to 
believe, to love, to obey Him ; and hence, whether acknowledged 
or not, the obligation exists. And, moreover, if in baptism respon- 
sibility is undertaken, far greater is the blessing than the responsi- 
bility : for let it ever be remembered, that it is admission not to a 
covenant of works and to a bargain, ‘ This do, and thou shalt 
live ;”’ but that it is to a covenant of grace, to pardon, and mercy, 
and spiritual aid, and the promise of eternal life. Great therefore 
are the blessings of baptism ; and, though of course there are con- 
sequent obligations, yet they are only such as, more or less, would 
exist for the unbaptized. 

Again, the statement of St. Paul, that the children of Christian 
parents are holy (1 Cor. vii. 14), is fairly alleged as a proof that 
Christians’ children are fit recipients of the first Christian Sacra- 
ment. The other Sacrament, which is a renewal of the cove- 
nant made in the first, may be fitter for the adult and intelligent ; 
but there can be nothing to keep the infant from the first. If it be 
said that he has original sin, this, so far from keeping him from 
baptism, is his very reason for needing it. For though we may 
hope that, under the Gospel of the grace of God, sin will not be 
imputed where it has not been actual and wilful; yet baptism is 
“for the remission of sin’? (Mark i. 4); and there is no way, but 
baptism, whereby we can place the infant in formal covenant with 
God, and therefore within the terms of the covenant, and having 
the assurance that his sins shall not be imputed to him, and that, 
if he go hence, his soul shall be safe. 


1 τὶς, any one. 


he. de 


680 OF BAPTISM. (Arr. XXVIL 


__ The words of St. Peter, again, sound much like an encouragement 
to bring the young to baptism. For when he had exhorted those 
who asked what they should do, to be ‘* baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,’”’ and assured them that then 
they should “receive the Holy Ghost;’’ he added, “For the 
promise is to you and to your children” (Acts ii. 38, 39). 

Lastly, though it is true that we read nothing of infants being 
baptized by any of the Apostles, it being on every account far 
more likely that we should hear of the baptism of adults, yet we 


‘do find that whole households were baptized by them, in more 


cases than one ( Acts xvi. 15, 83; 1 Cor. i. 16); and in households 
it is most likely that there must have been children. 

If we consult the records of antiquity, we shall find every reason 
to believe that the practice of infant baptism prevailed from the 
very first. Justin Martyr wrote his Second Apology about a. Ὁ. 
148 (i. ὁ. 48 years after the death of the last Apostle). He there 
speaks of persons 60 and 70 years old, who had been made disei- 
ples to Christ in their infancy.!. How can infants be made disci- 
ples, but by baptism? And if these had been baptized in their 
infancy, it must have been during the lifetimes of the Apostle St. 
John, and of other apostolic men. Irensus, next in succession to 
Justin, says: ‘ Christ came to save all by Himself; all, that is, who 
by Him are regenerated to God, — infants and little ones, and boys 
and youths and old men. Therefore He went through every age, 
being made an infant for infants, that He might sanctify infants.” 3 
ἄς. If we consider that Irenzus, like other of the fathers, com- 
monly calls baptism by the name of regeneration, this passage will 
seem conclusive of the custom and doctrine in his day. 

Tertullian is an important, though unwilling witness. He shows 
that in his day (about a century from the Apostles) the custom of 
baptizing infants prevailed, and that sponsors were wont to answer 
for them; but he himself advocated a delay in baptism; for he 
thought the innocent age of infants could scarcely need the haste 
of bringing them to baptism ; he thought also that sponsors might, 
from death or other causes, be unable to fulfil their duties, and he 
considered it better to seek remission of sins later in life, when 
temptations were less likely to make men fall away.* This was his 
own reasoning against the custom of the Church, showing what 
that custom of the Church, against which he reasoned, was. His 

1 πολλοί τινες καὶ πολλαὶ ἐξηκοντοῦται καὶ vare ; omnes, inquam, qui per Eum re- 
ἑβδομηκοντοῦται, οἱ ἐκ raidwy ἐμαϑητευϑῆ- nascuntur in Deum ; infantes et parvu- 
σαν τῷ mye ἄφϑοροι δισαμένουσι.---- Justin. los, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores,” 


Apol. τι. p. 62. &c. —Ireneus, Lib. rr. c. 39, p. 160. 
* “Omnes venit per semetipsum sal- 8. De Buptismo, ο. 18. 
Ρ ὶ pti 


Src. IV.] OF BAPTISM. 681 


own view arose from his fear of the heinousness of sin after bap- 
tism, which we have already considered. 

Origen, a few years later, bears ample testimony to the custom 
of infant baptism. ‘‘ Infants,” he says, ‘are baptized for the remis- 
sion of sins;” and he gives the reason, that ‘‘ none is free from 
pollution, though his life be but of one day on the earth.” 1 He 
tells us also, that ‘‘ the Church received a custom handed down 
from the Apostles, to give baptism even to infants.”? Origen, it 
is observed by Wall, was born about 85 years after the Apostles, 
and his family had long been Christian. 

The next father of note is Cyprian. In his day (cire. a. Ὁ. 
250) there arose a question as to what day a child should be bap- 
tized. Fidus, an African bishop, wrote to him to inquire whether 
baptism, like circumcision, should be always deferred till the eighth 
day; or whether, if need required, it might be administered at 
once. An answer was returned by Cyprian and a council of sixty- 
six bishops. The unanimous judgment of the council was, that 
there was no need of such delay, for “ the mercy and grace of God 
is to be denied to none that is born.”® If anything could be an 
obstacle to persons obtaining the grace of baptism, they argue, 
adults would be rather hindered by their grievous sins. But if no 
one is so kept from baptism, how much less infants, who have no 
sins but such as they derived by inheritance from Adam. 

The foregoing testimonies all occur in the first century and a 
half from the Apostles. It would be easy, but in this brief sketch 
it is unnecessary, to carry the chain further down. For a moment 
we may notice the view taken by Gregory Nazianzen, as it seems 
remarkable and indeed unaccountable. He gives his judgment, 
that, in case of danger, baptism ought to be administered without 
delay ; but if there be no danger, he advises that it be deferred for 
about three years.2 Why deferred at all, if to be deferred but 
three years, he does not explain. 

That, among the later fathers, baptism was not so universally 
administered in infancy as amongst ourselves, there does indeed 
seem reason to conjecture. The great potency which many 
attached to it, and the fear of the contraction of heinous sin after 
it, appear to have induced some to delay its administration. Thus 


1 Origen. Zn Luc. Homil. xtv. homini nato misericordiam Dei et gra- 
2 “Pro hoe (7. 6. propter peccatum tiam denegandam.” — Cyprian. Epist. 64 
originis) Ecclesia ab Apostolis tradi- ad Fidum. 
tionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptis- * Ibid. See this part of the passage 
mum dare.” —Origen. In Epist.ad Roman. quoted under Art. 1x. p. 240, note 4. 
Lib. v. 9. 5 Greg. Naz. Orat. xu. Tom. 1. p. 
ὃ “ Universi potius judicavimus nulli 658, a. 


682 OF BAPTISM. [Axr. XXVIL 


Constantine was not baptized till he was dying.! St. Augustine, 
though his mother was a Christian, did not receive baptism in his 
infancy. He himself deplores the delay, but says it was owing to 
his mother’s fear of the great temptations which seemed impending 
over his boyhood, to which she thought it better “to expose the 
clay, whence her son might afterwards be moulded, than the cast 
when made.” ? 

Such instances, resulting from peculiar scruples, are no proofs 
that the custom of baptizing in infancy did not prevail from the 
first. Augustine himself clearly asserts, that the Church both 
held the custom, and believed the efficacy of infant baptism, from 
all times, and so universally, that it could only have received it 
from the Apostles.’ 

1 Euseb. Vita Constantin. Lib. 1v. c. % De Baptismo, c. Donatistas, Lib. rv. 


c. 24, Tom. rx. p. 140, cited in the last 
2 August. Confess, Lib. 1. c. 11. section. 


ARTICLE XXVUIL 


--ς--- 


Of the Lord's Supper. 


Tue Supper of the Lord is not only a 
sign of the love that Christians ought to 
have among themselves one to another ; 
but rather is a Sacrament of our Re- 
demption by Christ’s death: insomuch 
that to such as rightly, worthily, and 
with faith, receive the same, the Bread 
which we break is a partaking of the 
Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup 
of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood 
of Christ. 

Transubstantiation (or the change of 
the substance of Bread and Wine) in the 
Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by 
Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain 
words of Scripture, overthroweth the na- 
ture of a Sacrament, and hath given oc- 
vasion to many superstitions. 

The Body of Christ is given, taken, 
and eaten, in the Supper, only after an 
heavenly and spiritual manner. And 
the mean, whereby the Body of Christ 
is received and eaten in the Supper, is 
Faith. 

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper 
was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, 
carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. 


De Cana Domini. 


Cana Domini non est tantum signum 
mutuz benevolentie Christianorum inter 
sese, verum potius est sacramentum 
nostre per mortem Christi redemptio- 
nis. Atque adeo, rite, digne et cum fide 
sumentibus, panis quem frangimus est 
communicatio corporis Christi; similiter 
poculum benedictionis est communicatio 
sanguinis Christi. ᾿ 

Panis et vini  transubstantiatio in 
Eucharistia ex sacris literis probari non 
potest; sed apertis Scripture verbis ad- 
versatur, sacramenti naturam evertit, 
et multarum superstitionum dedit occa- 
sionem. 

Corpus Christi datur, accipitur et 
manducatur in Coena tantum ceelesti et 
spirituali ratione. Medium autem, quo 
Corpus Christi accipitur et manducatur 
in Coena, fides est. 

Sacramentum Eucharistie ex institu- 
tione Christi non servabatur, circumfere- 
batur, elevabatur, nec adorabatur. 





Section I.— HISTORY. 


ὁ ρὲ Article treats generally of the Lord’s Supper, but more 
especially of the presence of Christ in that Sacrament, and of 


the mode in which He 


is received there. 


On this mysterious 


doctrine there have been four principal opinions: 1, Transubstan- 
tiation ; 2, Consubstantiation ; 3, The real spiritual presence ; 4, The 
denial of any special presence altogether. 

1. Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Church of Rome. 
As stated by school-authors, and other more subtle reasoners 
among them, it means that in the Eucharist, after the words of 
consecration, the whole substance of the bread is converted into the 
substance of the Body of Christ, and the substance of the wine 
into the substance of His Blood; so that the bread and wine no 


684 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVIII. 


longer remain, but the Body and Blood of Christ are substituted 
in their places. This, however, is said to be true only of the 
substance, not of the accidents. The accidents (such as colour, 
shape, taste, smell, consistence, ὥς.) all remain unchanged. The 
substance, which is interior to, and not necessarily dependent on 
these external accidents, is that which is converted. Yet we are 
not to call it a mere spiritual change, (though some of their writers 
have allowed even this,) but the change is a real and miraculous 
conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the very 
Body of Christ, which was born of the blessed Virgin and crucified 
on Calvary. 

2. Consubstantiation is considered to be the doctrine of Luther 
and the Lutherans. It differs from transubstantiation, in that it 
does not imply a change in the substance of the elements. Those 
who hold this doctrine teach, that the bread remains bread, and 
the wine remains wine ; but that with, and by means of the conse- 
crated elements, the true, natural Body and Blood of Christ are 
communicated to the recipients. 

8. The doctrine of a real, spiritual presence is the doctrine of 
the English Church, and was the doctrine of Calvin, and of many 
foreign reformers. It teaches that Christ is really received by 
faithful communicants in the Lord’s Supper; but that there is no 
gross or carnal, but only a spiritual and heavenly presence there ; 
not the less real, however, for being spiritual. It teaches, there- 
fore, that the bread and wine are received naturally ; but the Body 
and Blood of Christ are received spiritually. ‘* The result of which 
doctrine is this: it is bread, and it is Christ’s Body. It is bread in 
substance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given 
to all that are truly disposed, as the symbols are: each as they 
can; Christ as Christ can be given; the bread and the wine as 
they can; and to the same real purposes to which they were 
designed ; and Christ does as really nourish and sanctify the soul 
as the elements the body.” } 

4, The fourth opinion is that of Zuinglius, who taught that the 
Eucharist is a bare commemoration of the death of Christ, and that 
the bread and wine are mere symbols and tokens to remind us of 
his Body and Blood. 

The subject on which we are entering is one which has pro- 
duced folios of controversy ; alas! what should have been for our 
peace becoming to us an occasion of falling. But a brief view is 
all that is here possible. 


1 Jer. Taylor, On the Real Presence, sect. 1. 4 


Src. L] OF THE LORD’S ‘SUPPER. 685 


When we consider the language of the fathers, one or two cau- 
tions are necessary. Of course their words were not measured 
and guarded, as ours have been in our times of trouble. Their » 
writings are often rhetorical, that we say not sometimes turgid. 
They treat such questions as these practically, not argumentatively. 
Now in such writings, it may be very difficult to tell the exact 
intention of the writer, when subsequent ages have drawn subtle 
distinctions. 

Thus much we must premise as unquestionable. The whole prim- 
itive Church evidently believed in a presence of Christ in the Eu- 
charist. All spoke of feeding there on Christ; eating His Body 
and drinking His Blood. But then was it a spiritual presence or 
a carnal presence? Did they teach a carnal eating and drinking of 
Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood? or did they intend a spiritual 
manducation, — an eating spiritually and a drinking in by the soul 
of the life-giving efficacy of the Body broken and the Blood shed ? 
Did they believe the bread and wine to be actually and literally 
transmuted into Flesh and Blood? or did they think the bread and 
wine still to remain bread and wine, though constituted Sacraments 
of Christ, means in God’s hand of conveying to us Christ’s Body and 
Blood, and so, after Christ’s own example, to be called by the name 
of His Body and Blood ? 

Here is the question; and it must be carefully noted. If there 
were no other alternative, but that the fathers must have been either 
Papists or Zuinglians, — must have held either a carnal presence, or 
none at all; then we must perforce acknowledge that they believed 
in a carnal presence, and were transubstantialists. For some pres- 
ence they undoubtedly taught ; some mode of feeding on Christ they 
undeniably believed in. But another alternative is possible, and 
has been acknowledged as possible, even by eminent scholastic and 
Romanist divines. They may have believed a spiritual presence. 
They may have thought, that the Eucharist conveyed Christ 
really, and yet spiritually, to the recipient; and they may have 
taught, that the soul was truly nourished by spiritually feeding on 
His Flesh and Blood, as truly as the body is nourished by carnally 
feeding upon bread and wine. 

Whichever they held, a carnal or a spiritual presence, they 
may easily have used language which would sound like the carnal 
presence. There can be little doubt that their faith and feelings 
inclined them to the mysterious, and there was no controversy, 
no apparent need of caution. But then we may observe, that 
one clear statement that the presence was spiritual, or that the 


686 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Arr. XXVIIL 


substance of the bread and wine remained, must outweigh state- 
ments innumerable, which merely sound like a belief in transub- 
stantiation or in a carnal presence. For the latter would naturally 
occur where people believed in a real presence, and had never 
learned the necessity of guarding their words, lest they should be 
thought to teach a carnal and natural presence; but the former 
could never come from the lips or pens of those who acknowledged 
2 literal change of the elements, and that the natural Body of the 
Lord was actually eaten by all who communicate. 

For instance, Roman Catholics will never say, that the bread 
and wine remain unchanged, and that the feeding is only spiritual. 
But Protestants, of many different communions, have freely declared 
that Christ’s “‘ Body and Blood are verily and indeed taken.” Nay! 
it is acknowledged by them, that the Body of Christ then received 
is the very Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was 
crucified, dead, and buried. For there is no other Body, no other 
Blood of Christ. Christ’s Body is now glorified, but still it is the 
same Body, though in .its glorified condition. It is not even 
denied that we receive that Body really, substantially, corporally : 
for although the word “ corporally”’ seem opposed to “ spiritually,” 
yet it is not so of necessity. And, as we acknowledge that it is a 
Body which we receive, so we cannot deny its presence corporally, 
i. 6. after the manner of a Body. Only, when we come to explain 
ourselves, we say, that, though it be Christ’s very Body we receive 
in the Eucharist, and though we cannot deny even the word 
corporal concerning it; yet as Christ’s Body is now a spiritual 
Body, so we expect a spiritual presence of that Body ; and we do 
not believe, that we naturally and carnally eat that which is now 
no longer carnal and natural; but that we spiritually receive 
Christ’s Spiritual Body into our souls, and spiritually drink His 
life-giving Blood with the lips of our spirit.!. Moreover, it has 
been abundantly acknowledged, not only by our English divines, but 
by Protestants of all sorts, that the elements, after consecration, 
may be called by the name of those things which they represent. 
But then we call them so, not because we believe them to have 
lost their original nature, and to have ceased to be what they were, 
but because, being hallowed to a new and higher purpose, they may 
be called that which they are the means of communicating. 

It was necessary to say thus much, that we might not be 
startled by strong terms; and so conclude at once that we had 
found a doctrine, before it had yet entered even into men’s dreams. 

* See this excellently laid down by Bp. Taylor, On the Real Presence, sect. 1. 911. 


ee ee ee ee ,..ὦ....ὄ νυ 


Src. 1. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


687 


With this precaution, we shall readily see in the fathers abundant 
evidence that the carnal doctrine of transubstantiation had not 
risen in their days. Let us take one or two of the strongest 
expressions, and which, if not explained and qualified by other 
statements, would seem conclusive for transubstantiation and a 
natural presence. 

St. Jerome and others speak of the clergy as making the Body 
of Christ.! Yet, as the words of consecration make the bread the 
Sacrament of Christ’s Body, and so the means of conveying His 
Body to the communicant, and as.it was an acknowledged mode 
of speech, and fully sanctioned by the language of our Lord, to 
call the consecrated bread by the name of that of which it was the 
type and Sacrament; it was not unnatural that the priest, by his 
consecration, should be said to make Christ's Body and Blood, 
even by those who believed no more than a spiritual and sacra- 
mental communication of them to the faithful. 

St. Chrysostom writes, ‘‘ When you behold the Lord sacrificed 
and lying, and the priest standing by the sacrifice and praying, and 
the congregation sprinkled with that precious Blood (καὶ πάντας 
ἐκείνῳ τῷ τιμίῳ φοινισσομένους αἵματι). . . . are you not immediately 
transported to Heaven, and dismissing from your soul every fleshly 
thought, do you not with naked spirit and pure mind see the things 
which are in Heaven? -Oh wonderful! Oh! the love of God! 
who, seated with the Father above, is held at that moment by the 
hands of all; and who gives Himself to those who desire to re- 
ceive Him. And all see this by the eyes of faith.”? ‘ Behold 
thou seest Him, thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. He gives 
Himself to thee, not only to see, but to touch, to eat, and to 
receive within . . . . How pure should he be who partakes of 
that sacrifice! the hand that divides His Flesh, the mouth filled 
with Spiritual fire, the tongue empurpled with His awful Blood! 8 
Now these expressions are so strong that even believers in tran- 
substantiation could hardly use them without a figure. The Ro- 
man Catholics allow that the accidents of the bread and wine 
remain unchanged ; and would hardly therefore in literal language 


1 “ Absit ut de his quidquam sinistrum 
loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes 
Christi Corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per 
quos et nos Christiani sumus; qui claves 
regni celorum habentes,” &c. — Hieron. 
Ad Heliodorum, Epist.v. Tom. tv. part 1. 


p. 10. 

2 De Sacerdot. 111. § 4. 

ὃ Ἰδοὺ αὐτὸν ὁρᾶς, αὐτοῦ ἅπτῃ, αὐτὸν 
ἐσθίεις... αὐτὸς δὲ ἑαυτόν σοι δίδωσιν, 


οὐκ ἰδεῖν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἅψασϑαι καὶ 
φαγεῖν καὶ λαβεῖν ἔνδον. . . τίνος οὖν οὐκ 
ἔδει καϑαρώτερον εἷναι τὸν ταύτης ἀπολα- 
ὕοντα τῆς ϑυσίας ; ποίας ἡλιακῆς. ἀκτῖνος 
τῆν χεῖρα τὴν ταύτην διατέμνουσαν τὴν 
σάρκα, τὸ στόμα τὸ πληρούμενον πυρὸς 
πνευματικοῦ, τὴν γλῶσσαν τὴν φοινισσο.- 
μένην αἵματι φρικωδεστάτῳ. --- Chrys. Hom 
88 in Matt. c. 26. 


OT ΠΥ ΕΙΣ :".υ.Ἕρὄρ----- .Ἂνν ψ νυμψμ συν τυ << a ᾿" ὦ ἱ . ΡΥ —— 


688 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. _[Arr. ΧΧΥ͂ΠΙ. 


speak of the tongue as assuming the purple colour of Christ’s 
Blood. But hyperbolic expressions are common with St. Chrys- 
ostom and his contemporaries; and they use such language, that 
they may exalt the dignity of the blessed Sacrament; that they 
may induce: communicants to approach it with devotion and rey- 
erence ; that they may turn their minds from the visible objects 
before them to those invisible objects which they represent, and 
which as St. Chrysostom says, they may “ see by the eye of faith.” 

Still more remarkable perhaps are the expressions used by 
others of the Greek, especially the later Greek fathers, concern- 
ing the change (μεταβολὴ, μεταστοιχείωσις) in the Sacraments. So 
Gregory Nyssen says, “ These things He gives by virtue of the 
benediction upon it, transmuting the nature of the things which 
appear.” And Theophylact (the last of the Greek fathers, a. Ὁ. 
1077), “Therefore the merciful God, condescending to us, pre- 
serves the form of bread and wine, but transforms them into the 
virtue of His Flesh and Blood.”’? Those who translate peracrot- 
χειοῦν by transelementare, think that we have here the very word 
made use of, which exactly answers to the Roman Catholic doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, namely, a change of the elements into 
something different from their original substance. Yet first of all 
transelementare is not certainly, nor probably, a right translation? 
Secondly, Gregory Nyssen is speaking not only of a change in the 
Eucharist, but in the Sacraments generally ; and whatever sanc- 
tifying efficacy may have been attributed to the water in baptism, 
no change of its substance was ever believed to take place. 
Thirdly, Theophylact only says that the elements are changed into 
the virtue or efficacy, not into the substance of Christ’s Flesh and 
Blood, — a very notable distinction. Fourthly, he uses the same 
word (μεταστοιχείωσις.) of changes very unlike transubstantiation, 6. g. 
the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption, and the change 
that is made in the faithful, when they are united to Christ.‘ 
Lastly, we shall find abundant proof from Greek fathers, centuries 
before Theophylact, to show that a conversion of substance was 


1 ἊΝ δὲ δίδωσι τῇ τῆς εὐλογίας δυνάμει αἱ matey that ¢ranselementare (Bee Bar 
πρὸς ἐκεῖνο μεταστοιχείωσας τῶν φαινυμένων properly express its sense. - 
ΜΝ dvow. —Gregor. Nyssen. Jn Orat. ti Il. Pp. 868, 864.) Jer. Taylor (On 
Catechet. the Real Presence, sect. x11. num. δ) ad- 

2 Διὰ τοῦτο τ Pah cmp ἡμῖν ὁ φιλάν. duces the words of Suarez, the learned 
ϑρωπος" τὸ μὲν εἶδος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου φυλάτ- Jesuit, in acknowledgment that μετα- 
rec’ εἰς δύναμιν δὲ σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος με- στοιχείωσις does not properly convey the 
raoroixeiot.—Theophyl. In Evangel. Marc. meaning of transubstantiation 
cap. OXIV. * Theophyl. Jn Lue. xxiv. et in Joh. vi 

Suidas has μεταστοιχεΐουσα, μετασχημα- apud Jer. Taylor, ubi supra. 
τίζουσα, μεταπλάττουσα. Suicer argues 





So. 1.3 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.. 689 
not believed by the early Greek Church; and therefore, that 
Theophylact’s transelementation must have meant something else, 
or that he himself must have adopted comparatively modern views. 

The same observations apply to the passages cited from St. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, where he speaks of Christ’s changing the water 
into wine, and then adds, * Let us therefore with full assurance 
receive Christ’s Body and Blood ; for His Body is given to thee in 
the figure of bread, and His Blood in the figure of wine.”! But 
here St. Cyril happily explains himself; for-soon after he speaks 
of the Capharnaite Jews as offended at our Lord’s sayings in John 
vi. 58. And this, he says, was from their carnal interpretation of 
His words: “They, not receiving His saying spiritually, being 
offended went backward, thinking that He invited them to the 
eating of flesh.”? He then compares the Eucharist to the shew- 
bread, and says that, “as the bread is fitted for the body, so the 
Word for the soul. Look not therefore as on bare bread and wine, 
for they are, according to the Lord’s saying, His Flesh and 
Blood.” 8 The context plainly shows the conversion to be spirit- 
ual, not as the Jews had understood our Lord, as indicating a lit- 
eral σαρκοφαγία, or banquet upon flesh. 

There is a famous passage, which the Roman Catholic contro- 
versialists coupled with the last from St. Cyril, and much insisted 
on, as plainly in their favour. It comes from the tract De Oana 
Domini, in former times attributed to St. Cyprian, but which the 
Benedictine editors assign to Arnoldus, of Bona Vallis, a contem- 
porary of St. Bernard. It speaks of the bread as “" changed, not 
in form, but in nature.”* The words of our own reformer shall 
explain that, even if the language were (as it is not) St. Cyprian’s, 
it would not prove him a supporter of transubstantiation. ‘‘ The 
bread is changed, not in shape nor substance, but in nature, as 
Cyprian truly saith; not meaning that the natural substance of 
bread is clean gone, but that by God’s word there is added 


1 ἐν τύπῳ γὰρ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι σῶμα, 
καὶ ἐν τύπῳ οἴνου δίδοταί σοι τὸ αἷμα. --- 
Cyril. Hieros. Cautec. Mystagog. tv. 1. 

2 ἐκεῖνοι μὴ ὠκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν 
λεγομένων; σκανδαλισϑέντες, ἀπῆλϑον εἰς 
τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες ὅτι ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν 
αὐτοὺς προτρέπεται. ---- Ibid. 

3 Μὴ πρόσεχε οὖν ὡς ψιλοῖς τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ 
τῷ οἴνῳ" σῶμα γὰρ καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ κατὰ 
τὴν δεσποτικὴν τυγχάνει ἀπόφασιν. ---- Cat. 
Myst. ταν. 2. 

* “Panis iste, quem Dominus discipu- 
lis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura, 
mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est 
earo.”’ —De Cena Domini. The tract is 

87 


usually printed in the Appendix of the 
works of Cyprian. In the Oxford edi- 
tion it is in Appendix, p. 39, and the 
above passage, p. 40. In the edition of 
Venice, 1729, it is App. p. xcix. There 
is also a famous passage from St. Am- 
brose, De Afyst 1x. § 52, where he speaks 
of Christ’s words as changing the prop- 
erties of the elements: ‘ vulebit Christi 
Sermo ut species mutet elementorum; ” and 
again, mutare nafuras. The answer in 
the text to the passage from the Pseudo- 
Cyprian equally applies to this from St. 
Ambrose. See also Bp. Cosin, Hist. of 
Transubstant. ch. v1. 14. 


690 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Arr. XX VII 


thereto another higher property, nature and condition, far passing 
the nature and condition of common bread, that is to say, that the 
bread doth show unto us, as the same Cyprian saith, that we be 
partakers of the Spirit-of God, and most purely joined unto Christ, 
and spiritually fed with His Flesh and Blood: so that now the 
said mystical bread is both a corporal food for the body, and a 
spiritual food for the soul.” 1 

We must not.omit one passage from St. Hilary, which contains 
certainly some ‘startling expressions. He is arguing against 
heretics, who held that the Unity of the Father and the Son was 
unity of will, not unity of nature. He quotes against them John 
xvii, 21, 28: “* That they may be one, even as We are one: I in 
them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one.” 
And he contends, that the unity of the Father and the Son must 
be an unity of nature, not merely of will; inasmuch as the 
indwelling of Christ in His people is not by concord of will, but 
by verity of nature ; for He took the nature of our flesh, on pur- 
pose that He might dwell in us according to that human nature ; 
and by His human nature He dwelleth in us and we in Him, 
Hence our union with Him is by unity of nature, ὁ, 6. human 
nature. So in like manner, His union with the Father is by unity 
of nature, ὁ. 6. Divine nature. In the course of this argument he 
says, “ If Christ therefore really took flesh of our body, and He is 
truly that Man who was born of Mary, and we truly under the 
mystery receive His Flesh, by means of which we shall be one; 
for the Father is in Him and He in us; what room is there for 
mere unity of will, when the natural property effected by the 
Sacrament, is the Sacrament of perfect unity? Christ Himself 
says concerning the truth of His nature in us, My flesh is meat 
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, Whoso eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. Concerning the 
truth of His Body and Blood there is no room for doubt ; for now 
by our Lord’s witness and our own faith, it is truly Flesh, and 
truly Blood, And these received, and taken in by us, make that 
we be in Christ and Christ in us.”’ ? 

1 Cranmer, Remains, 11. p. 340; De- ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Shristus 
Jence of the Catholic Doctrine, Bk. 11. ch, est, nosque vere sub mysterio carnem 
ΧΙ. corporis sui sumimus; (et per hoc 

2 “ Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et Ile 
in Christo negabit neget prius non natu- in nobis;) quomodo voluntatis unitas 
raliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum aperitur, cum naturalis per sacramentum 
sibi inesse; quia in Christo Pater, et proprietas, perfectx sit sacramentum uni- 
Christus in nobis, unum in his esse nos _tatis: De naturali in nobis Christi veritate 


faciunt. Si vere igitur carnem corporis ipse ait: Caro mea vere est esca, et sanguis 
nostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo meus vere est potus. Qui edit ca; nem meam, 


Seo. 1.7 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 691 


The passage, strong as it is, does not stagger those who admit a 
true but spiritual presence of Christ’s Body in the receiving of the 
Eucharist, and a true but spiritual union of Christians to the hu- 
man nature of their Lord. ‘ For as concerning the word truly,” 
they say, “it setteth not lively forth a real and substantial pres- 
ence ; for Christ is truly in all His faithful people, and they truly 
eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and yet not by a real and cor- 
poral, but by a spiritual and effectual presence.” ? “ And although 
he saith that Christ is naturally in us, yet he saith also that we be 
naturally in Him. And nevertheless in so saying, he meant not of 
the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christ’s Body 
and of ours; for as our bodies be not after that sort within His 
Body, so is not His Body after that sort within our bodies .. . 
And as the union between Christ and us in baptism is spiritual . 
so likewise our union with Christ in His holy Supper is spiritual 
. .. and therefore Hilarius, speaking there of both the Sacra- 
ments, maketh no difference between our union with Christ in bap- 
tism and our union with Him in His holy Supper.” ? 

Now, although such passages admit of an explanation, whether 
we adopt the transubstantialist theory or the doctrine of a true but 
spiritual presence in the Eucharist ; yet it must be conceded that, 
if all the language of the fathers was similar to the above-quoted 
sentences, there would be just reason to suspect that, from the 
first, transubstantiation, or something near akin to it, was the doc- 
trine of the Church. But it is easy to bring a chain of testimonies, 
from the very earliest ages through many centuries, which cannot 
be interpreted to mean transubstantiation, or a carnal presence, 
but which declare, though plainly for a real, yet as plainly for a 
spiritual feeding upon Christ. 

The sphabolictl fathers, for the most part, speak in terms so gen- 
eral, that it is often almost doubtful, whether they speak of the Eu- 
charist, or of that spiritual feeding upon Christ as the bread of life, 
which all allow to be possible, even without the Eucharist. Thus 


εἰ bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et Doctrine, ὅς. Works, 11. pp. 406, 407. 
eyo in eo. De veritate carnis etsanguinis N.B. Just before the paxsage above 
non relictus est ambigendi locus: nune quoted, Hilary had spoken of the union, 
enim et ipsius Domini professione et of Christians to Christ in baptism, 88. 
fide nostra, vere caro, et vere sanguis he speaks afterwards of their union in 
est. Et hee accepta et hausta efficiunt the Eucharist: “ Docet Apostolus ex na- 
ut et nos in Christo et Christus in nobis tura sacramentorum esse hane fidelium 
sit.” — Hilar. De Trinitate, Lib. v111. ὃ 18, unitatem, ad Galatas scribens, Quotquot 


p- 222. Edit. Benedict. enim in Christo buptizati estis, Christum 
1 Cranmer’s Answer to Gardiner, Works, induistis,’ &¢.— De Trin. Lib. vit. p. 
11. p. 254. 218. Ed. Ben. 


2 Cranmer’s Defence of the Catholic 


692 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVIIL 


Ignatius, “ I delight not in the food of corruption, nor in the pleas- 
ures of this life; I desire the bread of God, which is the Flesh of 
Christ, and His Blood I desire as drink, which is love incorrupti- 
ble.” 1 Again, “ Let no one be deceived; if any one be not 
within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God.”? His high 
esteem for the grace of this Sacrament he shows in general expres- 
sions, 6. g. “ breaking one and the same bread, which is the medi- 
cine of immortality, our antidote that we die not, but live forever 
in Christ Jesus.”? One passage in this early father alludes to 
certain sects of the Gnostics or Docetz, who not believing that the 
Saviour had ever taken real human flesh, refused to receive the 
Eucharist, because they would not acknowledge it to be the Body 
of Christ. ‘They abstain from the Eucharist and public prayer, 
because they confess not the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our 
Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the 
Father of His goodness raised from the dead.””* From which we 
may fairly conclude, that the fathers called the consecrated bread 
the Body of Christ, and that some early heretics did not admit the 
language, or perhaps even the Sacrament, because they disbelieved 
in the existence of Christ’s Body. But even Bellarmine allows, 
that the question between Ignatius and the heretics was not the 
doctrine of the Eucharist, but the doctrine of the Incarnation.® 
Whatever may have been the belief of the Church as to the mode 
of receiving Christ’s Body in the Eucharist, the heretics would 
have been equally likely to reject the Eucharist, as not acknowl- 
edging that Christ had a body et all. For the Eucharist, which 
symbolizes, and is the means of receiving His Body, presupposes 
its reality. Another passage from Ignatius is as follows: “* Hasten 
therefore to partake of the one Eucharist; for there is but one 
Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for the unity of His 
Blood; one altar, as also one bishop,” ὁ ἄς. Here the exhortation 
is to avoid schism, partaking of the one Eucharist, where is exhib- 
ited to us the oneness of the Saviour we receive, and so the unity 


of the Church. 
1 Ignat. Ad Roman. v1. The passage ριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶ 


is in the Syriac. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν 
a — Ad. Ephes. v. παϑοῦσαν, ἣν χρηστότητι ὁ ταις "Ὦς τα 
8. Ad Ephes. xx. 5 De Eucharistia, τ. 1, cited by Bp. 


* Ad Smyrn. στὰ. The passage is not Cosin, Hist. of Transubstantiation, ch. V1. 

in the longer epistles, but it is in the 11. 3 

shorter (esteemed the genuine) epistles 8 Σπουδάσατε rat on εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσϑαι" 

εξ i en and it is cited by Theodoret μέα yap σὰρξ rod Κυρίου ἡμῶν "Inood Χρι- 

( . 8) and is maintained to be genuine στοῦ, καὶ ἔν ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος 

by Cotelerius, Tom. 11. p. 87, note in lor. αὐτοῦ, ἕν ϑυσιαστήριον Pig! ele ἐπίσκοπος, 
ph. Iv. 


6 Greek is εὐχαριστίας καὶ πὶ χῆς κ. τ. A.— Ad Philadel, 
ἀπέχονται, διὰ τὸ oy ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχα- 


Szc. I.] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 693 ᾿ 


Justin Martyr describes the Eucharistic feast to the heathen em- 
peror. He speaks first of the bread and wine as blessed by the pre- 
siding presbyter; and then says, “ This food is called by us Eucha- 
rist, which no one is allowed to take, but he who believes our 
doctrines to be true, and has been baptized in the laver of regener- 
ation, for the remission of sins, and lives as Christ has enjoined. 
For we take not these as common bread and common drink. For 
like as our Saviour Jesus Christ, having been made flesh by the 
Word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we are 
taught that this food, which is blessed by the prayer of the Word 
that cometh from Him, by conversion of which our flesh and blood 
are nourished, is the Flesh and Blood of Him, the Incarnate Jesus.”’} 
There is manifestly in this passage what may be called High Eucha- 
ristic doctrine. Justin was plainly no Zuinglian. The Christians 
of his day took not the consecrated elements “ for common bread 
and common wine.” But, if Justin was no Sacramentarian, 
neither was he a transubstantialist. Whereas he says it is not 
common bread, he evidently believes it to be yet bread; otherwise 
he would naturally have left out the epithet common, and have 
said, that they esteemed it no longer bread at all. Moreover, he 
speaks of the elements as changed into the nourishment of our 
flesh and blood. But he would never have said this had he be- 
lieved them to have literally become the unchangeable and incor- 
ruptible Body of the Lord. It is evident, therefore, that he held 
no change in the elements, but a Sacramental change; although 
he undoubtedly declares, that in the Eucharist the Christians were 
taught that there was a reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. 
Dr. Waterland argues, that consubstantiation is as much excluded 
by this passage as transubstantiation,? though Bishop Kaye appears 
to admit that it sounds not unlike the former.’ Still he has justly 
added, that in the Dialogue with Trypho Justin states the bread 
to be in commemoration of Christ’s Body, and the cup of His 


1 οὗ yap ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον, οὐδὲ κοινὸν 
πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὃν τρόπον 
διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηϑεὶς ᾿Ιησοῦς 
Χριστὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, καὶ σάρκα καὶ 
αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως 
καὶ τὴν δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
εὐχαρισϑεῖσαν τροφὴν ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες 
κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ 
σαρκοποιηϑέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα 
ἐδιδάχϑημεν εἶναι. --- Justin. Apol. 1. p. 
98 


“ As it appears to me, Justin in this 
passage does not intend to compare the 
manner, in which Jesus Christ being 


made flesh by the Word of God hath 
flesh and blood for our sake, with that 
in which the bread and wine... . be- 
came the Flesh and Blood of Christ ; 
but only to say that, as Christians were 
taught that Christ had flesh and blood, 
so were they also taught that the bread 
and wine in the Eucharist are the Body 
and Blood of Christ ; ὃν τρόπον is merely 
equivalent to as.””— Bishop Kaye, Jus- 
tin Martyr, pp. 87, 88, note. 

2 Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. v11 

3 Bp. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 74. 


694 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVEHL. 


Blood ;! and m another place applies to them the expression * dry 
and liquid food ;” 2 and such language would scarcely have been 
used by a believer in the natural, though the language of the for- 
mer passage might be readily adopted by a believer in the spiritual 
presence. 

Our next witness is Irenzeus. ‘ As the bread from the earth, 
receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the 
Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly ; so also 
our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, 
‘but have hope of eternal resurrection.” ® Here we have evidently 
the substance of the bread remaining, still an earthly element. 
Yet it is no longer common bread, for by consecration there is a 
heavenly or spiritual grace united to it, which makes it not mere 
bread, but the Eucharist. 

Ireneus had to contend against the Gnostics, who denied the 
reality of the Body of Christ. In more than one place he argues, 
from the real substantial character of the Eucharistic elements, 
that the Flesh and Blood of Christ, of which they were the repre- 
sentatives, must be substantial and real. This will make his lan- 
guage sometimes sound as though he believed in a natural pres- 
ence of that Flesh and Blood ; yet, if we remember his object and 
attentively observe his words, we shall think otherwise. That 
cup,” he says, “which is a creature, He recognized to be His 
Blood which is shed, with which He imbues (deve) our blood; 
and the bread which is a creature, He affirmed to be His own 
Body, by which our bodies grow. When, therefore, both the min- 
gled cup and the created bread receive the word of God, and be- - 
come the Eucharist of Christ’s Blood and Body, and by them the 
substance of our flesh grows and consists, how can they say, that 
the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, namely of life eternal, 
when it is fed by Christ’s Body and Blood, and 15 ἃ member of 
Him?” # 

In a fragment edited by Pfaff, we have a clear explanation of 
Trenzus’s view, that, by the Holy Spirit descending on the Eucha- 
rist, the Elements become so the Body and Blood of Christ, that, 
though they yet remain figures or emblems, still the partakers of 


1 περὶ τοῦ ἄρτου ὃν m ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ' vali the ἐκ ne 
petreper X στὸς ποιεῖν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ τε πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα * 

ae theless τ. A.— Dialog. p. 296, σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα τῆς ero. 

τῶν ξηρὰς καὶ γρᾶς, ἐν ριστίας μηκέτι εἶναι φϑαρνὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα 


ἐ ὦ" τοῦ gpa Mh ὃ πέπονϑε δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα. --- Irene. 
εὸς τοῦ ὟΝ ΝΣ ἢ Ρ. 345. Lib. rv. 82 (Lib. 1v. 18, Bened.) 
ἘΣ ῊΝ γῆς ἄρτος προσ * Adv. Har. v. ἃ. ΟΥ̓ this we 


γόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτε may observe, that if Iren@us had meant 


Sec. 1.1. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


695 


those emblems obtain pardon and eternal life! In another frag- 
men‘ quoted from him by Gicumenius, we read, that during per- 
secution some slaves had informed against their masters, having 
misinterpreted the language used concerning the Eucharist, and 
so supposing that their masters fed on human fiesh. This, Ive- 
neeus says, arose from their having heard the divine Communion 
called the Blood and Body of Christ; “and they, thinking it was 
in reality flesh and blood, gave information accordingly.”? The 
inference obviously is, that Irenzeus did not think the bread and 
wine to have become really Flesh and Blood. So he, like Justin 
Martyr, is a witness against the Roman doctrine, and yet perhaps, 
as Waterland observes, still more against the mere figurists or 
memorialists. For it is certain, that he believed the Body and 
Blood of Christ to be verily and indeed taken in the Eucharist ; 
but still he gives no indication of a belief in a change of the 
elements, acknowledging them to be emblems (ἀντίτυπα), and not 
thinking that those who partook of them, were indeed feeding 
upon flesh and blood.® 
Tertullian says, ‘“‘ The petition, Give us this day our daily bread, 
may be spiritually interpreted. For Christ is our bread. 1, said 
He, am the bread of Life: and just before, The Bread is the Word 
of the Living God, who came down from Heaven: and also because 
His Body is understood in Bread, This is My Body. (Tum quod 
et Corpus Ejus in pane censetur, Hoc est Corpus Meum.) Thete- 
fore, by asking our daily bread, we seek perpetuity in Christ and 
to be undivided from His Body.” * Again he writes, “" Our body 
is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that our soul may be 
fattened of God.” 5 He speaks of Christ, as calling bread His 
Body.® “Bread,” again we read, “by which He represents His 
very Body.” So also, “" Having taken bread and distributed it to 


that the elements were changed in sub- 
stance into Christ’s Body and Blood, he 
would never have spoken of them as 
nourishing our bodies, which implies the 
idea of digestion, acknowledged to be 
blasphemy. 

1 καὶ ἐνταῦϑα τὴν πρόσφοραν τελέσαν- 
τες ἐκκαλοῦμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὅπως 
ἀποφήνη τὴν ϑυσίαν ταύτην καὶ τὸν ἄρτον 
σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ" ἵνα οἱ μεταλάβοντες 
τούτων τῶν ἀντιτύπων τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν 
ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ τῆς ζωῆς αἰωνίου τύχωσιν. --- 
Irenxi Scripta Anecdota, tragm. 2, p. 29. 

2 οἱ δοῦλοι οὗτοι, μὴ ἔχοντες πῶς τὸ τοῖς 
ἀναγκάζουσι kal’ ἡδονὴν ἐρεῖν, map’ ὅσον 
ἤκουον τῶν δεσποτῶν, τὴν ϑείαν μετάληψιν 
αἷμα καὶ σῶμα εἷναι Χριστοῦ, αὐτοὶ νομί- 
σαντες τῷ ὄντι αἷμα καὶ σάρκα εἶναι, τοῦτο 


ἐξεῖπον τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσι. ---- Fragmentum ab 
(Ecumenio in Comment. ad 1 Petri Epist, 
cap. 8, p. 498, allegatum; Irenzi Op. 
Grabe, p. 469. 

3 There is an excellent chapter in 
Beaven’s Jreneus on the subject of 
Irenus’s statements concerning the 
Kucharist. 

4 De Oratione, α. 6. 

5 “Caro Corpore et Sanguine Christi 
vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur.” 
— De fesur. Carn. ¢. 8. 

8 “Christus. . . panem corpus suum 
appellans.”’ — Adv. Jude. ¢. 10. 

Ὁ ες Panem, quo ipsum Corpus suum 
representat.”” — Adv. Marcion. Lib. 1. ¢. 
14. 
“Represento — to exhibit as present ; 


eee ΣΝ ΦΝ “ "= ψνν ΝΟ Ὁ τὰ... .--. 


696 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVIIL 


His disciples, He made it His body by saying, This is my Body, 
i.e. the figure of My Body. But there would be no figure, if 
there were no true Body. A mere phantom, without substance, 
would admit no figure.” In the last passage, he is arguing, like 
Ignatius and Irenzus, against those who denied a Body to our Lord. 
Now surely this: testimony is plain. The bread is not really 
Christ’s Body, but a figure of His Body, with which however He 
is pleased to recall (representare) His Body to His followers. In 
this bread His Body is understood (censetwr) or accounted ; and so 
our bodies are fed with His Body, that our souls may be nourished 
of God. Though the bread then is a figure ; yet the feeding on 
Christ is not merely figurative, but real, and spiritual. He is the 
Bread of life; and by feeding on Him we receive perpetual and 
indivisible union to His Body. , 
Clement of Alexandria, of the same date with Tertullian, says, 
“The Blood of the Lord is twofold: the one natural or carnal, 
whereby we are redeemed from corruption; the other spiritual, 
whereby we are anointed ; and this is to drink the Blood of Jesus, 
to be partakers of the Lord’s incorruptibility. Also the Spirit is 
the power of the Word, as the Blood is of the flesh.”* He then 
goes on to speak of the wine mingled with water; and says, that 
the mixture of the drink and of the Logos is called the Eucharist 
—“ Blessed and glorious grace, by which those, who partake in 
faith, are sanctified both body and soul,”” ‘+ Christ,” he says a little 
farther on, “partook of wine; for He was aman. He blessed it 
too, saying, Take, drink, this is My Blood, the blood of the vine. 
He thus calls allegorically the Word, who was poured forth for 
many for the remission of sins, the sacred stream of gladness... . 
He showed that what He blessed was wine, by saying to His disci- 
ples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it with you 
in My Father’s Kingdom.” ὃ Clement was a very mystical writer ; 
ὑποτυπόω, presentem esse facio, ob ocu- 


los pono, refero. Reprasentare dicuntur 
pictores, Item oratores graphice quip- 


τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, τῆς Κυριακῆς μεταλαμβάνειν 
ἰφϑαρσίας " ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ Λόγου τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς 
μα σαρκός. --- Padag. Lib. 11. 6. 2, Ρ. 


piam describentes.”” — Facciolati. 

1 “Acceptum panem et distributum 
discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc 
est Corpus Meum, dicendo, id est, figura 
Cozporis Mei. Figura autem non fuis- 
set nisi veritatis esset Corpus. Ceterum 
vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram 
‘vapere non posset.” — Ade. Murcion. Lib. 
Iv. ¢, 40. 

3 Διττὸν δὲ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου " τὸ μὲν 
ἐστιν αὐτοῦ σαρκικὸν, ᾧ τῆς φϑορᾶς 
ρώμεϑα" τὸ δὲ πνευματικὸν, τουτέστιν 

ᾧ κεχρίσμεϑα " καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι πιεῖν τὸ αἷμα 


177. 

3 Eb γὰρ lore, μετέλαβεν οἴνου καὶ αὐτὸς " 
καὶ γὰρ ἄνϑρωπος καὶ αὐτός. Καὶ εὐλόγησέν 
ye τὸν olvov, εἰπὼν, λάβετε, πίετε " τοῦτό 
pov ἐστὶ τὸ αἷμα, αἷμα τῆς ἀμπέλου " τὸν 
Λόγον, τὸν περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς 
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εὐφροσύνης ἅγιον ἀλλη- 
γορεὶ vaua . . , ὅτι δὲ οἶνος ἣν τὸ εὐλογη- 
ϑὲν, ἀπέδειξε πάλιν, πρὸς τοὺς μαϑητὰς 
λέγων. Οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς 
ἀμπέλου ταὺὑτης, μέχρις ἂν πίω αὑτὸ ped? 
ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡμῶν. -- 
Padag. Lib. 11, ο. 2, p. 186. 


7) ree 8 


Sec. 1.1 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 697 


but we can discern this much at least from the foregoing passages : 
that, whilst he attached great spiritual blessings to the Eucharist, 
he yet believed the substance of the wine to remain in it, and the 
Blood received therein to be spiritual, not natural Blood. 

In Origen, as in his predecessors, we perceive at the same time 
deep reverence for the Body of Christ received in the Eucharist, 
and yet a belief that the reception of that Body was spiritual and 
heavenly, not carnal and natural. ‘When ye receive the Body 
of the Lord, with all caution and reverence ye preserve it; lest 
any, the least thereof, be lost, or any portion of. the consecrated 
gift pass away.”! ‘ Acknowledge that they are figures, which 
are written in the sacred volumes ; therefore as spiritual, not carnal, 
examine and understand what is said. For, if as carnal you re- 
ceive them, they hurt, not nourish. you. Not only in the old Tes- 
tament is there a letter which killeth ; but also in the new there 
is a letter which killeth him who does not spiritually consider it. 
For, if according to the letter you receive this saying, Hxcept ye 
eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, that letter killeth.”’ 3 

St. Cyprian, in his 63d Epistle, is very full on the subject of the 
cup in the sacrament. He is writing there against the Aquarii, 
who rejected wine as evil, and so used water at the communion. 
He argues that the tradition of the Lord should be preserved ; and 
that nothing should be done but what Christ did before: that there- 
fore ‘the Cup, which is offered in commemoration of Him, be 
offered mixed with wine. For whereas Christ says, J am the true 
Vine, the Blood of Christ is surely wine, not water. Nor can it 
appear that in the cup is His Blood, with which we are redeemed, if 
wine be absent, by which Christ’s Blood is represented.” * There 
is much there to the same purpose. But these words alone prove, 
that Cyprian, whilst calling the consecrated wine the Blood of 
Christ, and believing (as is abundantly evident through his writ- 
ings everywhere) that there was in the Sacrament a real partaking 


1“ Cum suscipitis Corpus Domini,cum  spiritaliter que dicuntur adverterit. Si 


omni cautela et veneratione servatis, ne 
ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati 
muneris aliquid dilabatur.””— Zn Hod. 
Hom. X11. 

2 “ Agnoscite quia figure sunt que in 
divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo 
tanquam spiritales et non tanquam car- 
nales examinate et intelligite que dicun- 
tur. Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipi- 
tis, ledunt vos et non alunt. Est enim 
et in evangeliis litera que occidit. Non 
solum in veteri Testamento occidens lit- 
era deprehenditur ; est et in novo Testa- 
mento litera que occidat eum qui non 

88 


enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ip- 
sum quod dictum est : Nisi manducaveritis 
carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, 
oceidit litera.” — Jn Levit. Hom. ναι. n. 5. 

δ ἐς Ut calix, qui in commemoratione 
Ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur. 
Nam cum dicat Christus; go sum vitis 
vera ; sanguis Christi, non aqua est uti- 
que, sed vinum. Nec potest videri san- 
guis Ejus, quo redemti et vivificati sumus, 
esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici 
quo Christi sanguis ostenditur.’’ — 
ἴω Epist. πεκτιι. ; Cecilio Fratri, p. 1a. 
xf, 


698 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Arr. XXVIII 


of Christ, yet considered that there was still remaining the sub- 
star.ce of the wine; for, says he, "" The Blood of Christ is wine,” 
i. ¢. that cup which we drink, acknowledging it to be the Blood of 
Uhrist, is wine. Moreover, he considered the wine to be a repre- 
sentation or means of showing Christ’s Blood, and the cup to be 
ffered in commemoration of Him. 

St. Athanasius, quoting John vi. 16-63, observes, “ Christ dis- 
»nguished between the flesh and the spirit, that believing not only 
what was apparent, but also what was invisible, they might know 
that what He spake was not carnal but spiritual. For to how many 
could His Body have sufficed for food that this might be for nour- 
ishment to all the world? But therefore He made mention of His 
ascension into heaven, that He might draw them from understand- 
ing it corporally ; and that they might understand that the Flesh 
He spoke of was heavenly food from above, and spiritual nour- 
ishment given them by Him. For, says He, the things that I speak 
unto you they are spirit and they are life. Which is as though He 
had said, My Body, which is shown and given for the world, shall 
be given in food, that it may be spiritually distributed to every one, 
and become to each a preservative unto the resurrection of eternal 
life.” 1 : 

We have already heard St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the contempo- 
rary of Athanasius, declare his belief, that the Body and Blood of 
Christ are given us under the figure of bread and wine, and that 
the Capharnaites were misled by interpreting our Lord carnally, as 
though He meant a banquet upon flesh, not, as He ought to be in- 
terpreted, spiritually.2 So, in a former lecture, speaking of the 
unction, which was given with baptism, figuring the anointing of 
the Holy Ghost, he writes, ‘‘ Beware of supposing this bare une- 
tion. For as the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the 
Holy Ghost, is no longer mere bread (οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτὸς), but the 
Body of Christ ; so also this holy ointment is no longer simple oint- 
ment, nor common, after the invocation, but the gift of Christ.... 
While thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is 


1 τὸ πνεῦμα πρὸς τὰ κατὰ σάρκα διέστειλεν, 
lots jah μόρον ‘wh: Gucsbueves, ἀλλὰ Kal τὸ 
ἀόρατον αὐτοὺ πιστεύσαντες μάϑωσιν, ὅτι καὶ 
& λέγει οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὰ ἀλλὰ πνευματικά" 
πόσοις vip ἤρκει τὸ σῶμα πρὸς βρῶσιν, ἵνα 
καὶ τοῦ κόσμου παντὸς τοῦτο τροφὴ γένηται; 
ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς διαβάσεως 
ἐμνημόνευσε τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου, ἵνα τῆς 
σωματικῆς ἐννοίας αὐτοὺς ἀφελκύσῃ καὶ λοιπὸν 


τὴν εἰρημένην σάρκα βρῶσιν ἄνωϑεν οὐράνιον, abo 


καὶ πνευματικὴν τροφὴν παρ' αὐτοῦ 


μάϑωσιν. ἃ γὰρ λελάληκα, φησὶν, ὑμῖν πνεῦ- 
μα ἐστι καὶ (wh. ἴσον τῷ εἰπεῖν, τὸ μὲν 
δεικνύμενον καὶ διδόμενον ὑπὲρ τοῦ κόσμου 
δοϑήσεται τροφὴ, ὡς πνευματικῶς ἐν ἑκάστῳ 
ταύτην ἀναδίδοσϑαι, καὶ γίνεσϑαι πᾶσι φυ- 
pre her de ἜΝ OT ctuecnras 
Athanas. Jn ἡ vangelii, * cumque 
dixerit,” Op. Tom. 1. p. 979. 

2 Cyril. Cateches. Mystag. 1v. 1, cited 
ve. 


Src. 11 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 699 


sanctified by the Holy, life-giving Spirit.” 1 Here is a denial that 
the bread is mere bread, not that it still continues really bread ; and 
a statement that it is the Body of Christ, but so the Body of Christ, 
as the unction was believed to be the Holy Ghost; ὁ. 6. not in a 
natural change of the substance, but in spirit, and power, and life. 

St. Jerome clearly distinguishes between the natural Body and 
Blood of Christ, which were crucified and shed, and the spiritual 
Body and Blood of Christ, which are eaten and drunken by the 
faithful.2. And so we must explain that language of his, which, 
as we saw above, appeared to savour of the later doctrine of the 
Latin Church. St. Chrysostom too, who used such glowing terms 
of the real presence of Christ, elsewhere explains himself, that we 
should look on all Sacraments, not outwardly and carnally, but 
spiritually and with the eyes of our souls.? And in the Epistle to 
Cesarius, which is mostly esteemed to be his, and if not his, was 
certainly by a contemporary of his, we read that, “ before the bread 
is consecrated, we call it bread; but, when it is consecrated, it is 
no longer called bread, but is held worthy to be called the Body 
of the Lord, yet still the substance of the bread remains.” 4 

We must now proceed to St. Augustine, whom all agree to hon- 
our. He has so much to the purpose, that how to choose is diffi- 
eult. ‘Prepare not thy teeth, but thy heart.”5 “Why make 
ready thy teeth and thy belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” ® 
** Our Lord hesitated not to say, This is my Body, when He gave 
the sign of His Body.”? “Spiritually understand what I have 
spoken to you. You are not to eat that Body, which you see, and 


1 Cat. Myst. 111. 8. 

2 “ Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et 
earo intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa et 
divina, de quo Ipse dixit: Caro mea vere 
est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus: et, 
Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et san- 
guinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam 
eternam; vel caro et sanguis que cru- 
cifixa est et qui militis effusus est lancea. 
Juxta hane divisionem et in sanctis 
ejus diversitas sanguinis et carnis accip- 
itur, ut alia sit caro que visura est salu- 
tare Dei, alia caro et sanguis que regnum 
Dei non queant possidere.” — Hieronym. 
ΤΆΩΝ cap. i. ν. 7. Tom. rv. pt. 1. p. 


8 τί δέ ἐστι τὸ σαρκικῶς νοῆσαι; τὸ ἁπλῶς 
εἰς τὰ προκείμενα ὁρᾶν, καὶ μὴ πλέον τι φαν- 
τάζεσϑαι. τοῦτο γάρ re σαρκικῶς. χρὴ δὲ 
μὴ οὕτω κρίνειν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις, ἀλλὰ πάντα 
τὰ μυστήρια τοῖς ἔνδον ὀφϑαλμοῖς κατοπτε- 
ὕειν. τοῦτο γήρ ἐστι πνευματικῶς. — Chry- 
sost. In Joann. c. vi. ; Homil. xtvi1. Tom. 
ὙΠ. p. 278. 


4 “Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur 
panis, panem nominamus: divina autem 
illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacer- 
dote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione 
panis; dignus autem habitus Dominici 
Corporis appellatione, eamsi natura panis 
in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora, sed 
unum Corpus Filii predicamus,” &c. — 
Chrysost. Ad Cesarium Monach. Tom. 11. 
p. 748. On the history and genuineness 
of this Epistle see Cave, Histor. Literar. 
Tom. τ. p. 815; Routh’s Seriptor. Eccles. 
Opuscula, p. 479; Jenkyns’s Cranmer, 11. 
Ρ. 325, note. 

5 “ Noli parare fauces, sed cor.” — 
De Verbis Domini, Serm. 88, Tom. v. p. 
566. 

6 “Quid paras dentes et ventrem 1 
Crede et manducasti.” — Jn Joann. Tract. 
25, Tom. 111. pars. 11. p. 489. 

7 *Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere 
Hoe est Corpus Meum, cum signum daret 
Corporis sui.” —Contra Adimantum, Tom. 
vit. p. 124.. 


ae SS eee 


700 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Arr. ΧΧΥΠΙ. 


drink that Blood, which they will shed, who wil! crucify me. I 
have commended to you a Sacrament. Spiritually understood, it 
will quicken you. Though it must be visibly celebrated, yet it 
must invisibly be understood.” ! ‘* What you see is bread and the 
cup. But as your faith requires, the bread is Christ’s Body, the 
cup His Blood. How is the bread His Body? and the wine His 
Blood? These things, brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, 
because in them one thing is seen, another understood. What ap-— 
pears has a bodily form: what is understood has a spiritual fruit.” 5 
“The Body and Blood of Christ will then be life to each, if what 
is visibly received in the Sacrament be in actual verity spiritually 
eaten, spiritually drunk.” ὃ 

Theodoret may be our last witness, a witness against transub- 
stantiation, but not against the truth of Christ’s presence, nor the 
real participation in His Body and Blood. ‘ Our Saviour,” he 
tells us, “‘changed the names of things; giving to His Body the 
name of bread, and to the bread the name of His Body. His ob- 
ject was, that those who partake of the mysteries, should not have 
regard to the nature of the visible elements, but by the change 
of names, might believe that change which is wrought by grace. 
For He, who called His own Body food and bread, and again 
called Himself a vine, He honoured the visible symbols with the 
name of His Body and Blood, not changing the nature, but adding 
to the nature grace.”’* And afterwards he says, ** The mystic sym- 
bols depart not after consecration from their own nature, for they 
remain in the former substance ; yet we understand what they have 


1 “ Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus 
sum; non hoe Corpus quod videtis man- 
dicaturi estis, et bibituri illum sanguinem 
qu em fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. 

acramentum aliquod vobis commen- 
davi. Spiritaliter intellectum, vivifica- 
bit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibili- 
ter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter 
intelligi.”” — Jn Psalm. xeviii. ‘Tom. tv. 
p. 1066. 

2 “ Quod videtis, panis est et calix, 
quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant: 
quod autem fides vestra postulat instru- 
enda, ae est Corpus Christi, calix san- 
guis Christi . . Quomodo est panis 
corpus Kjus 1 et calix, vel quod habet 
calix, quomodo est sanguis Ejus Ὁ Ista, 
fratres, ideo dicuntur sacramenta, quia 
in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. 
Quod videtur, speciem habet corpora- 
lem, quod intelligitur fructum habet spir- 
italem.” — Serm. 272 ad wey. Tom. v. 


pars 1. p. 1108, 


8 “ Vita unicuique erit Corpus et San- 
guis Christi, si quod in sacramento visi- 
biliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spirital- 
iter manducetur, spiritaliter bibatur.’’ — 
cae 2 De Verbis Apostoli, Tom. v. pars 


I. 

Po Ὁ δέ γε Σωτὴρ ὁ ἡμέτερος ἐνήῆλλαξε τὰ 
ὀνόματα " καὶ τῷ μὲν σώματι τὸ τοῦ συμβό- 
λου τέϑεικεν ὄνομα, τῷ δὲ συμβόλῳ τὸ τοῦ 
σώματος. οὕτως ἄμπελον ἑαυτὸν ὀνόμασας, 
αἷμα τὸ σύμβολον προσηγόρευσεν. 

Δῆλος ὁ σκοπὸς τοῖς τὰ ϑεῖα μεμυημένοις. 
ἐβουλήϑη γὰρ τοὺς τῶν ϑείων μυστηρίων 
μεταλαγχάνοντας, μὴ τῇ φύσει τῶν a 
νων προσέχειν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων 
ἐναλλαγῆς πιστεύειν τῇ ἐκ τῆς χάριτος γεγεν- 
νημένῃ μεταβολῇ. ὁ γὰρ δὲ τὸ σῶμα σῖτον 
καὶ ἄρτον προσαγορεύσας, καὶ αὖ raw ἑαυ- 
τὰς πελον ὀνομάσας, οὗτος τὰ ὁρώμενα 

τῇ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος προση- 
ἫΝ pave ob τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλὼν, 
ἀλλὰ τὴν Xx TH φύσει προστεϑηκώς. -- 
Dial. 1, of "Sirmond. Tom. ry. p. 17. 


Src. 1.1 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 701 


become, and believe and adore, as though they were what they are 
believed to be.” ἢ 

Space and time will not allow us a longer list of authorities. 
Those already adduced have been fairly chosen, and should be 
fairly weighed. The Christian student must not argue for victory, 
but search for truth. That search is seldom unattended by difficul- 
ties. Yet may it not in this case be safely concluded, that, weigh- 
ing all considerations, and notwithstanding some remarkable phrases, 
the doctrine of the early ages was not in favour of a miraculous 
change in the consecrated elements, not in favour of a carnal pres- 
ence of the natural Body of the Lord, but in favour of a real, 
effectual, life-giving presence of Christ’s spiritual Body communi- 
cated to the faith, and feeding the souls, of His disciples ? 

There is, perhaps, another possible alternative. The early 
Church held firmly Christ’s presence in His Sacraments. The 
tendency was, for the most part, not to explain, but to veil such 
subjects in a reverential mystery. It may therefore have been 
that, whereas a spiritual presence was originally and generally 
recognized, yet some may have suffered their reverence to degen- 
erate into superstition, and have spoken, and perhaps thought, as 
though there were a carnal presence. There was probably a vague- 
ness of apprehension on the subject among some. Their very re- 
ligion tended to foster this. But one thing is certain, namely, that 
the doctrine of a carnal presence was never the ruled doctrine of 
the primitive ages, was not received, or rather was emphatically 
denied, by many of the greatest of the fathers, and that it does not 
come down to us with the sanction and authority of that which 
was always, everywhere, and by all men, anciently acknowledged 
(quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est). And 
another thing is most certain, namely, that, if any of the fathers 
did contemplate any beside a spiritual presence, it was not in the 
way of transubstantiation, but rather of consubstantiation. For, 
let us take the example of St. Hilary, who, if any one, used lan- 
guage most like the language of later ages. Still the very object 
of his reasoning was to prove, that in Christ’s Person there are 
two natures: one not extinguished, because the other is added. 
He illustrates this by the bread of the Eucharist, which still 
retains the nature of the bread unchanged, although the nature of 


1 Οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικὰ καὶ πρότερον Hv, νοεῖται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο καὶ 
σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως" μένει πιστεύεται, καὶ προσκυνεῖται ὡς ἐκεῖνα ὄντα 
γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχῆματος ἅπερ πιστεύεται. ---- Dial. 2, ed. Sirmond. 
καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὅρατά ἐστι καὶ ἁπτὰ, ola Tom. tv. p. 85. ͵ 


- 


702 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVOE 


Christ’s Body is added to it. Now, interpret this how we may, it 
is a plain witness against transubstantiation. It may mean consub- 
stantiation ; it may mean a spiritual presence; but transubstantia- 
tion it cannot mean: for it was an error of Eutyches, not of the 
orthodox St. Hilary, that the human nature of the Saviour was 
absorbed and transubstantiated into the Divine. 

We must now pass on to the controversies of the Middle Ages. 
About a. Ὁ. 831, Paschasius Radbert, a monk, and afterwards 
ablot of Corbie, maintained the corporal presence.2— Whether even 
he taught the full-grown doctrine of transubstantiation, or only 
consubstantiation, our divines have questioned. Certainly he 
speaks some things very unlike the former, and even more resem- 
bling the doctrine of spiritual feeding. Yet he says, that “ after 
the consecration nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ are 
to be believed ;” an expression nearly approaching, if not fully 
expressing, the Roman doctrine 

Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, a divine of the highest 
eredit in the Church, wrote against the statements of Paschasius. 
The work is lost indeed; but the evidence of its former existence 
is strong and clear.® | 

Johannes Scotus Erigena, who at this period lived at the court 
of Charles the Bald, and sometimes with our own king Alfred, and 
who at his death was esteemed a martyr, and placed in the Roman 
Calendar, wrote a book by the command of the Emperor Charles, 
against the substantial change in the Sacraments; a book, which, 
two hundred years afterwards, was condemned at the council of 
Verceil, upon the ground that it made the bread and wine to be 
mere empty signs.® 

Bertram too, or Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie, wrote, also at 
the desire of Charles the Bald, concerning this doctrine, which now 
began to agitate the Church. The book is still extant, and is well 
worthy to be read, Its genuineness has been attacked by the 


1 See above, p. 69. 

2 Cave places him ἃ. ἡ. 841. 

8 “ Christus ergo cibus est angelorum, 
et sacramentum hoc vere caro ipsius et 
sanguis, quam spiritualiter manducat et 
bibit homo.” —De Corpore et Sanguine 

ini, ο. 5. 

* “Quia voluit (Dominus), licet in 
figura panis et vini, hac sic esse, omnino 
nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis 

ost consecrationem credenda sunt.” — 

bid. cap. 1. 

Bishop Cosin gives several specimens 
of his language ( Hist, of Transubstantiation, 
ch. xxv. 8. 29), and argues, that there is 


nothing in his whole book “ that favours 
the transubstantiation of the bread, or its 
destruction or removal.”’ However, he 
quotes Bellarmine and Sirmondus as 
esteeming him so highly, that they were 
not ashamed to say that he was the first 
that had written to the purpose concern- 
ing the Eucharist; but there are some 
spurious additions to his book, which 
speak a stronger language than the hook 
gh See also Cave, ἢ. Δ. Tom. τ. p. 


δ See Cave, H. Δ. p. 642. 
® Ibid. Tom. 1. p. bio, 


Sue. 17 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 708 
Roman Catholic writers, but with little suecess. Others have charged 
him with heresy ; whilst others again have allowed him to be Cath- 
olic, but yet, like other Catholics, not free from some errors.!_ The 
book was finally prohibited by the Council. of Trent. Bertram’s 
statements are clear for the spiritual, and against the carnal pres- 
ence in the Eucharist. ‘The change,” he says, “15 not wrought 
corporally, but spiritually and figuratively. Under the veil of the 
material bread and wine the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ 
exist . . . . Both (the bread and wine), as they are corporally 
handled, are in their nature corporal creatures; but, according to 
their virtue, and what they become spiritually, they are the myste- 
ries of Christ’s Body and Blood.” ? ‘By all that hath been hith- 
erto said, it appears, that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are 
received by the mouths of the faithful in the Church, are figures 
in respect of their visible nature ; but in respect of the invisible 
substance, that is the power of the Word of God, they are truly 
Christ’s Body and Blood. Wherefore, as they are visible creat- 
ures, they feed the body; but as they have the virtue of a more 
powerful substance, they do both feed and sanctify the souls of the 
faithful.’’ 8 

The Middle Ages, if favourable to a reverent, were not less fa- 
vourable to a superstitious spirit. Hence the principles of Pascha- 
sius were more likely to gain ground than those of Bertram ; yet 
there are not wanting testimonies, for some time later, in fayour 
of the spiritual and against the carnal presence. Especially it. has 
been observed that the doctrine of the Anglo-Saxon Church was 
more than others in accordance with the primitive truth. The fa- 
mous Ailfric was born probably about a. Ὁ. 956, and died about 1051. 
He was abbot, some say of St. Albans, others of Malmesbury or 
Peterborough ; and afterwards Archbishop of York.t Some valu- 


1 Index Expurgator. Belgic. jussu et 
auctoritate Philip. II., cited by Aubertin. 
De Eucharist. p. 980; Cosin’s Hist. of 
Transubst. ch. v. § 85; Bishop Taylor, On 
the Real Presence, § x11. 82. 

2 “ At quia confitentur et Corpus et 
Sanguinem Christi esse, nec hoc esse pot- 
uisse nisi facta in melius commutatione, 
neque ista commutatio corporaliter sed 
spiritualiter facta sit, necesse est ut jam 
figurata facta esse dicatur: quoniam sub 
velamento corporei panis, corporeique 
vini, spirituale corpus Christi, spiritualis- 
que sanguis existit. ... Secundum nam- 
que quod utrumque corporaliter contin- 
gitur, species sunt creature corpore ; 
secui:dum potentiam vero, quod spiritual- 


iter facte sunt, mysteria sunt Corporis 
et Sanguinis Christi.” — Ratramnus, De 
Corpore et Sanguine Domini. London, 
1686, p. 24. 

3“ Ex his omnibus, que sunt hactenus 
dicta, monstratum est quod corpus et 
sanguis Christi, que fidelium ore in 
ecclesia percipiuntur figure sunt secun- 
dum speciem visibilem : At vero secun- 
dum invisibilem substantiam, i. e. divini 
potentiam Verbi, Corpus et Sanguis 
vere Christi existunt. Unde secundum 
visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, jux- 
ta vero potentioris virtutem substantia, 
mentes fidelium et pascunt et sanctifi- 
cant.’ — Ibid. p. 64, 

δ See Cave, H, L. Tom. 1. p, 588; 





704 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVOL 


able fragments of his writings remain in Latin and Anglo-Saxon, 
full of clear statements on the doctrine in question. “Ἢ This is not,” 
he says, ‘ that Body in which He suffered for us, but spiritually it 
is made His Body and Blood.”! ‘ That housel” (4. 6. the Eu- 
charist) ‘is Christ’s Body, not bodily but ghostly: not the Body 
which He suffered in, but the Body of which He spake, when 
He blessed bread and wine to housel, a night before His suffer- 
ing,” ? ἄς. 

Not much later than Ailfric was Berengarius, Archdeacon of 
Angers, who appears to haye been a man of great piety. He 
strenuously maintained the doctrine, which had been taught by 
Bertram, Scotus, and Atlfric, teaching that the bread and wine 
remained in their natural substance, yet not denying the invisible 
grace of the Sacrament. It is probable that many of the Galli- 
can Church sided with him. He was condemned, however, and 
with him the writings of Johannes Erigena, by a Council at Ver- 
ceil under Leo IX., a. p. 1050, on the ground that they taught 
the bread and wine in the Eucharist to be only bare signs. Under 
Victor the Second, another Council was held at Tours, a. ἢ. 1055, 
at which Hildebrand presided as legate, where Berengarius freely 
declared that he did not believe the bread and wine to be mere 
empty shadows. Under Nicholas II., a new council was called at 
Rome (A. p. 1059); where Berengarius was forced to recant, and 
to declare that the “ bread and wine after consecration became the 
very Body and Blood of Christ, and that they are touched and 
broken by the hands of the priests, and ground by the teeth of the 
faithful, not sacramentally only, but in truth and sensibly.” After 
a time, however, he again maintained the doctrine of the spiritual 
presence ; and Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, 
entered the lists of controversy against him, in whose work are 
fragments preserved to us of the writings of Berengarius. At 
length Hildebrand came to the papal chair, as Gregory VII. He 
summoned another council at Rome, A. Ὁ. 1078; and another a. Ὁ. 
1079. © At the former Berengarius acknowledged, that the real 


Soames’s Anglo-Saron Church, ch. 1v. pp. effudit: sed spiritualiter Corpus Ejus 
218-229. There appear to have been eflicitur et sanguis.” — Εἰ οὶ Epistola 
two Ailfrics, one Archbishop of Canter- ad Wulfstanum; Routh. Opuscula, p. 520. 
bury, and the other of York. The latter, 2 From Elfric’s Epistle to Wulfsine, 
a friend and disciple of the former, is Bishop of Sherburn, Routh. p. 528. The 
generally acne to have been the passage quoted is from the Old a 
author of the Homilies. See Hardwick, translation of the reign of Queen 
Ch. Hist. of the Middle Ages, p..187. beth. The Anglo-Saxon is ae by Dr. 
1 “Non sit tamen hoc sacrificium Cor- Routh (/oc. cit.) with the English and 
pus Ejus in gno us est pro nobis, Latin versions. 
neque Sanguis Ejus, quem pro nobis 





Sec. 1. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


705 


Body and Blood of Christ were present at the Eucharist, without 
saying anything of transubstantiation ; and it is supposed that the 
Pope was satisfied with this, and unwilling to proceed further. But 
at the latter, the enemies of Berengarius prevailed, and he was 
forced to declare that the bread and wine are substantially con- 
verted into the Body and Blood of Christ, which Body after conse- 
cration is.present, not only sacramentally, but in verity of sub- 
stance.! 

It is very doubtful when the term transubstantiation was first 
used. It is said to have been invented by Stephen, Bishop of 
Augustodunum, about the year 1100, in his book De Sacramento 
Altaris.? 

Under Innocent III., a. p. 1216, sat the famous Council of 
Lateran, by which that term, and the full form of the doctrine, were 
sanctioned and made authoritative. Seventy chapters were drawn 
up by Innocent himself. When proposed to the Council, they were 
received without debate, and silence was supposed to imply con- 
sent. The first chapter is directed against the Manichzean heresy, 
and among other things, declares that, in the sacrifice of the Mass, 
« Christ’s Body and Blood are really contained under the species 
of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into His 
Body, and the wine into His Blood.” ? It has been acknowledged 
by the Schoolmen and Romanists, that before this Council the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation was not an article of the faith.t From 
this time, however, it became established as part of the Creed of 
the Roman Church. The Council of Constance, a. ἢ. 1415, in the 
eighth session, condemned Wicliffe for denying the doctrine of 
transubstantiation, and of the corporal presence. The Council of 
Florence, a. ἢ. 1439, at which Greek bishops and deputies were 
present, left the doctrine untouched. But the instruction to the 
Armenians, which runs only in the name of Pope Eugenius, and 
was not submitted to the Council, but which Roman Catholic au- 
thors often cite as a synodical decree, says, that “ by virtue of the 


1 ἐς Corde credo et ore profiteor panem 
et vinum que ponuntur in altari, per 
mysterium sacre orationis et verba nos- 


substantix.” — Concil. Tom. x. Ρ. 818. 
See Cosin’s Hist. of Transubst.; also 
Mosheim, #£. H. cent. x1. part ul. ch. 


tri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in 
veram ac propriam et vivificatricem car- 
nem et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu 
Christi, et post consecrationem esse 
verum Christi Corpus, quod natum est 
de Virgine, et quod pro salute mundi 
oblatum in cruce pependit — non tantum 
per signum et virtutem sacramenti, sed 
et in proprietate nature et veritate 
89 


111. 

2 Τὴ B. Patrum, Tom. x. p. 412. See 
Jer. Taylor On the Real Presence, sect. 
XII. 82. 

3 Concil. Tom. xr. p. 117. 

* See Bramhall’s δέου to M. de ἴα 
Milletiére, pt. 1. disc. 1.; Works, Anglo- 
Cath. Lib. 1. p. 14; Jer. Taylor, On the 
Real Presence, ὃ I. 2. 


OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Art. XX VIL. 


706 
words of Christ, the substance of the bread and wine is turned into 
the substance of His Body and Blood.” ! At length the Council 
of Trent, a. p. 1551, decreed, that by ‘* consecration there is a 
conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the 
substance of Christ’s Body and Blood.”? An anathema is pro- 
nounced against all who deny such change of the substance (the 
forms yet remaining), a change which the Church Catholic aptly 
calls transubstantiation.? Finally in the Creed of Pope Pius IV., 
(A. ν. 1563,) there is a profession of faith, that the Body and 
Blood of Christ, together “ with His Soul and Divinity, are truly 
and really and substantially in the Eucharist, and that there is a 
conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and 
of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood; which conver- 
sion the Church Catholic calls transubstantiation.”’ * 

The doctrine then of transubstantiation, and (as it is improperly 
called) the real presence, is the established doctrine of the Roman 
Church. There is still, however, a room for difference of state- 
ment and difference of thought upon the subject. It appears to be 
ruled, that the substance only, not the accidents, undergo a change. 
Now it is almost questionable, whether the accidents do not com- 
prise all the properties of matter. If so, the change may still be 
spiritual rather than material. And here we get a phenomenon by 
no means without parallel in other Roman Catholic articles of faith. 
For, as in saint worship some only ask departed friends to pray 
for them, whilst others bow down to the stock of a tree; so in the 
Eucharist, the learned and enlightened appear to acknowledge a 
far more spiritual change than is taught to the equally devout but 
more credulous multitude. For the latter all kinds of miracles 
have been devised, and visions, wherein the Host has seemed to 
disappear, and the infant Saviour has been seen in its room ; ΟἹ 
where Blood has flowed in streams from the consecrated wafer, im- 
piously preserved by unbelieving communicants. But on the other 
hand, by the more learned and liberal, statements have been made 
perpetually in acknowledgment of a spiritual rather than a car- 
nal presence ; and such as no enlightened Protestant would cavil 
at or refuse. 


1 See Cosin, On Transubstantiation, Bk. 
vir. § 80, 

2 Sess. x11. cap. iv. 

8 Sess. x111. De Eucharist. can. rv. 

* “Profiteor pariter in missa offerri 
Deo, verum, proprium et propitiatorium 
sacrificium pro vivis et defunctis, atque 
in sanctissimo Eucharistie sacramento 


esse vere, realiter et substantialiter cor- 
pus et sanguinem, una cum anima et 
divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, 
fierique conversionem totius substantie 
on in corpus, et totius substantie vini 
nsanguinem, quam conversionem Ca- 
tholica Ecclesia transubstantiationem ap- 
pellat.” 


Sec. 1.] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


707 


St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the immediate forerunner of the 
schoolmen (A. D. 1115), acknowledged no feeding but a spiritual 
feeding! Peter Lombard, the famous Master of the Sentences 
(a. ν. 1141), though speaking of the conversion of the bread and 
wine, declines to determine whether that conversion be formal or 
substantial, or of some other kind.? Aquinas (A. p. 1255) spoke 
of Christ’s Body as present, not bodily but substantially ;* a dis- 
tinction not easy to explain. Durandus (A. Ὁ. 1320) said that, 
though we believe the presence, we know not the manner of the 
presence. Cuthbert Tonstal, Bishop of Durham, said that, “ Be- 
fore the Lateran Council it was free to every one to hold 4s they 
would concerning the manner; and that it would have been better 
to leave curious persons to their own conjectures.” Cardinal 
Cajetan writes, that ‘* The real Body of Christ is eaten in the Sae- 
rament, yet not corporally but spiritually. Spiritual manducation, 
which is made by the soul, reaches to the flesh of Christ, which 
is in the Sacrament.”® And Gardiner, in his controversy with 
Cranmer says, “The Catholic teaching is, that the manner of 
Christ’s presence in the Sacrament is spiritual and supernatural, 
not corporal nor carnal, not natural, not sensible, nor perceptible, 
but only spiritual, the how and manner whereof God knoweth.”? 

Let us now pass to the doctrines of the Reformation, merely 
observing by the way, that the dogma of transubstantiation, though 
formally decreed by the Roman Church, has never been adopted 
by the Greek. Luther, if not the inventor, has been esteemed 
the great patron of the doctrine of consubstantiation. Whilst re- 
jecting the idea of a change in the ‘substance of the elements, he 
believed in a presence with the elements, of the material substance 
of Christ’s Body and Blood. He appears to have had recourse to 
the same illustration which had been used to explain the union of 
the Divine and human natures in Christ ; namely, that, as in red- 
hot iron there is the nature both of iron and fire, so in the Eucharist 


1 “adem Caro nobis, sed spiritualiter 
utique, non carnaliter exhibeatur.” — 
Sermo. De S. Martino. See Jer. Taylor, 
Real Presence, § 1. 8; Cosin, On Transub- 
stantiation, ch. v11. ὃ 18, who gives several 
quotations from St. Bernard to this 
effect. 


2 “Si autem queritur qualis sit illa’ 


conversio, an formaliter an substantial- 
iter, vel alterius generis, diffinire non 
sufticio.”? — Sent. rv. Dist. 10. See Cosin, 
as above, § 15. 

ὃ See Jer. Taylor, as above, § x1. 20. 

4 “Verbum audimus, motum senti- 


mus, modum nescimus, presentiam cred- 
imus.” — Neand. Synops. Chron. p. 208, 
quoted by Jer. Taylor, as above, § 1. 2. 

5 Tonstal, De Eucharist. Lib. 1. p46; 
Jer. Taylor, as above. 

ὁ  Manducatur verum Corpus Christi 
in sacramento, sed non corporaliter, sed 
spiritualiter. Spiritualis manducatio, que 
per animam fit, ad Christi carnem in sae- 
ramento existentem pertingit.” — Opuse. 
Tom. it. Tract. 2, De Euch. c. v.; Jer. 
Taylor, as above, ὃ vit. 8. 

7 Cranmer’s Works, 111. p. 241, Answes 
to Gardiner. 


OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. [Arr. XXVIIL 


708 


there is both the bread and the Body of the Lord. Strong as are 
his expressions in the arguments which he used with the Sacra- 
mentarians, still from his less controversial statements, we may 
almost be led to think that Luther did not much go beyond a faith 
in the spiritual presence. Controversy often produces extreme 
statements: and it may have been so with him.’ He does indeed 
say in a comparatively uncontroversial tract, that there are “ the 
real Body and Blood of Christ in and under the bread and wine.” 2 
But then he speaks of faith as the means whereby we obtain the 
benefits of the Sacrament, as that to which they are exhibited.’ 

As to the public documents of the Lutherans, the Confession of 
Augsburg simply declares, that the Body and Blood of Christ are 
really given with the bread and wine. But the Saxon Confession 
says, that “In this communion Christ is truly and substantially 
present, and His Body and Blood are truly exhibited to those who 
receive.” 5 

The great leader among the reformers, of those who took an 
opposite view to Luther, was Zuingle. He was not satisfied to 
reject a material presence ; but he even denied a presence of any 
sort. With him the bread and wine were empty signs. Feeding 
on Christ was a figure for believing in Him. The Communion 
was but a ceremony to remind us of Him. Spiritual manducation 
was resting upon the mercy of God. He probably may have mod- 
ified these statements afterwards; yet they thoroughly belonged to 
his system. 

Calvin took a middle course between Luther and Zuingle. With 
the former he acknowledged a real presence of Christ in His Sup- 
per; with the latter he denied a corporal or material presence. 
Having stated the view of the Sacramentarians, that to eat the 
Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ is merely to believe on Him, 
he says, “ But to me Christ appears to have intended something 


1 See, for instance, De Sacramento Al- 


taris, Opp. Tom. 1. p. 82. - 

2 “Esse verum corpus οἱ sanguinem 
Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, iti et sub 
pane et vino per verbum Christi.” — Cate- 
chismus Major, Tom. v. p. 641. 

8 Ibid. 

* “De Cena Domini docent quod cum 
pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et 
sanguis Christi, vescentibus in Cona 
ecg gin aa August. Art, x.; Syl- 


»P- ; 
teil Vere ene Christum, et vere ex- 
sumentibus corpus et sanguinem 
Christi.” — Sylloge, p. 282. 
δ “Sacramentaliter edere esse aliud 


non potest quam signum aut symbolum 
edere.”— De Vera et Falsa Religione, 

Zuinglii, pars 2, Tom. 1. fol. 215. He 
denies that there can be any spiritual 
Body of Christ, except His Church, fol. 
216. Again : “ Sacramentum est sacre rei 
signum. Cum ergo Sacramentum Cor- 
poris Christi nomino, non quicquam 
aliud, quam panem, qui Corporis Christi 
pro nobis mortui figura et typus est, in- 
telligo.”— De Cana ini, Ibid. fol. 274. 
“ Spiritualiter edere Corpus Christi nihil 
est aliud, quam spiritu ac mente niti mis- 
ericordia et bonitate Dei, propter Chris- 
hearth — Fidei Christiane Expositio, Ibid 
‘ol. 555. 


Sec. I.] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 709 


more express and sublime in that famous discourse of His, where 
He commends to us the eating of His flesh; namely, that by a 
real participation of Him we be quickened; which He therefore 
designated under the words eating and drinking, lest any should 
think that the life we derive from Him is received by simple 
cognition. For as, not the sight, but the eating of the bread gives 
nourishment to the body, so it is needful that, for the soul to be 
wholly partaker of Christ, it should be quickened by His virtue to 
life eternal.” ! 

The elements, according to him, receive the name of Christ’s 
Body and Blood, “ because they are, as it were, instruments where- 
by Christ distributes them to us.”? And, “if we believe the truth 
of God, we must believe that there is an inward substance of the 
Sacrament in the Lord’s Supper joined to the outward signs; and 
so, that, as the bread is given by the hands, the Body of Christ is 
also communicated, that we be partakers of Him.” ® ‘ That Body, 
which you see not, is to you a spiritual aliment. Does it seem 
incredible, that we are fed by the Flesh of Christ, which is so far 
from us? We must remember, that the work of the Spirit is secret 
and wonder-working, which it would be profane to measure by 
our intelligence.” * Thus then to receive Christ in the Eucharist 
is not merely to believe in Him; yet it is by faith we are enabled 
to receive Him. By believing we eat Christ’s Flesh, because 
by faith our feeding on Him is effected; and that feeding is the 
fruit of faith. ‘ With them,” (i. e. the Zuinglians,) he writes, 


1 Institut. rv. xvii. 5. “‘Ttaque fatendum est si vera sit rep- 


2 “ Corporis vero et sanguinis nomen 
eis attributum, quod sint velut instru- 
menta, quibus Dominus Jesus Christus 
nobis ea distribuit.”” — Calvinus, De Cena 
Domini, Opuscula. Geneve, 1552, p. 188. 

8 ἐς Tta in communione, quam in Christi 
corpore et sanguine habemus, dicendum 
est, mysterium spirituale esse, quod nec 
oculis conspici, nec ingenio humano com- 
prehendi potest. Figuris igitur et signis, 
que sub oculorum sensum cadunt, ut na- 
ture nostre imbecillitas requirit osten- 
ditur; ita tamen ut non sit figura nuda 
et simplex, sed veritati sue et substan- 
tiz conjuncta... . 

“« Necesse est igitur nos in Cena vere 
corpus et sanguinem Christi recipere, 
cum utriusque communionem Dominus 
representet. Quid enim sibi vellet, nos 
panem comedere ac vinum bibere, ut 
significent carnem ipsius cibum esse nos- 
trum, et sanguinem potum, si veritate 
spirituali pretermissa, vinum et panem 
solummodo preberet. ... . 


resentatio quam adhibet Deus, in cena 
substantiam interiorem sacramenti visi- 
bilibus signis conjunctam esse, et quem- 
admodum panis in manu distribuitur, ita 
Corpus Christi, ut Ejus participes simus, 
nobis communicari. Hoc certe etiam, si 
nihil aliud esset, nobis abunde satisfacere 
deberet, cum intelligimus Christum nobis’ 
in Coena veram propriamque corporis et 
sanguinis sui substantiam nobis donare 
—ut pleno jure ipsum possideamus, et 
possidendo in omnem bonorum suorum 
+ neg vocemur.” — Ibid. pp. 138, 
184, 

* “Corpus, quod nequaquam cernis, 
spirituale est tibi alimentum. Incredibile 
hoe tibi videtur, pasci nos Christi carne, 
que tam procul a nobis distat? Memi- 
nerimus, arcanum et mirificum esse Spir- 
itus Sancti opus, quod intelligentiae tue 
modulo metiri ‘sit nefas.”” — Calvin. In 1 
Cor. xi. 24, cited by Waterland, On the 
Eucharist, ας vit. 


710 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. [Arr. XXVOL 


“the feeding is faith: with me the power of feeding comes as a 
consequence of faith.” 

Melancthon, the disciple, friend, and successor of Luther, is sup- 

d to have hesitated between a material and a spiritual pres- 

ence. In the Confession of Augsburg, which is due to him, we 
have already seen strong words, which sound like consubstantia- 
tion. He is said to have used in earlier days the word corporal- 
iter, to express the mode in which Christ communicates His Flesh 
and Blood in the Eucharist, but to have avoided such expressions, 
after much intercourse on the question with CEcolampadius.? After 
Luther’s death, he had the chief voice and influence among the 
Lutherans ; and through his peaceful counsels in Germany, and 
Calvin’s sound views in Switzerland, much greater concord pre- 
vailed on this question among the continental Protestants, than 
had existed during the lifetime of the great reformer of Wittem- 
berg; the Lutherans and Zuinglians both consenting to modify 
their views and statements. Insomuch that Hooker observed 
concerning them: ‘ By opening the several opinions which have 
been held, they are grown for aught I can see on all sides, at the 
length to a general agreement concerning that which alone is 
material, namely, the real participation of Christ, and of life in His 
Body and Blood by means of this Sacrament:” + 

From the continental Protestants, we must turn to England. 
Cranmer and Ridley appear to have retained the doctrines of the 
corporal presence and of transubstantiation throughout the reign 
of Henry VIII. The formularies of that reign all seem to teach 
it. Ridley is said to have been converted to a belief in the spirit- 
ual (instead of the natural) presence, by reading the treatise of 
Bertram or Ratramn, probably about the year 15455 At this 
time Cranmer was zealous for transubstantiation. But Ridley com- 
municated to the Archbishop'what he had discovered im the writ- 
ings of Ratramn; and they then set themselves to examine the 
matter with more than ordinary care.® Ridley indeed refused to 
take the credit of converting Cranmer ;7 but Cranmer himself 
always acknowledged his obligations to Ridley.6 It has been 
thought that Cranmer went through two changes: to consubstan- 
tiation first, and then to the spiritual feeding ; and most probably 

1 “Tilis manducatio est fides, mihi ex * Hooker, Κ᾽. P. Bk. v. ch. uxvit. 2. 
fide potius consequi videtur.” — Institut. δ᾽ Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 166. 
tv. xvii. 5. ὁ Burnet, Hist. of Reformation, pt. 1. 

3 ΒΦ Jer. Taylor, On Real Presence, Bk. 1. p. 107. 

τ Ridley’s Life, p.1 


69. 
᾿ Bee Mosh. 2. H. Cent. xv1. sect. 111. 8 Cranmer’s , (Jenky as,) Iv. a 
pt. τὰ. ch. 1. 27, and ch. τι. 12. 97. 


Sec. 1.1 OF THE LOBD’S SUPPER. 


111 


there may have been some gradual progress in his convictions.} 
Yet it was constantly affirmed by him that, before he put forth 
the translation of the Catechism of Justus Jonas, commonly called 
Cranmer’s Catechism, he had fully embraced the spiritual doctrine, 
and that the strong phrases there used concerning the real pres- 
ence and the real feeding on Christ, were intended of a spiritual 
presence and a spiritual feeding, not of consubstantiation.? 

After this both Cranmer and Ridley, to whom we are chiefly in- 
debted for our formularies, maintained a doctrine nearly identical 
with that maintained by Calvin, and before him by Bertram. With 
the latter Ridley expresses his entire accordance.? He constantly 
declares that, whilst he rejects all presence of the natural Body 
and Blood, in the way of transubstantiation, he yet acknowledges 
areal presence of Christ, spiritually and by grace, to be received 
by the faithful in the Communion of the Eucharist. Cranmer 
has by some been thought to incline nearer to Zuinglianism ; yet, 
if fair allowance be made for hasty expressions in the irritation of 
controversy, it will probably appear that he, like Ridley, followed 
the doctrine of the ancient Church, and held a real reception of 
Christ in the Spirit. Certainly we find him writing as follows: “1 
say (as all the holy fathers and martyrs used to say) that we re- 
ceive Christ spiritually, by faith with our minds eating His Flesh 
and drinking His Blood: so that we receive Christ’s own very nat- 
ural Body, but not naturally nor corporally.”5 ‘ It is my constant 
faith and belief, that we receive Christ in the Sacrament, verily 
and truly... But... you think a man cannot receive the Body 
of Christ verily, unless he take Him corporally in his corporal 
mouth ... My doctrine is that... He is by faith spiritually pres- 
ent with us, and is our spiritual food and nourishment, and sitteth 


1 The subject is discussed by Dr. Jen- 

kyns, note to Cranmer’s Works, tv. p. 95. 
2 Cranmer’s Works, τι. p. 440, 111. pp. 

18, 297, 844. 

8 See Enchiridion Theologicum, τ. p. 56. 

* ΚΤ say that the Body of Christ is 
present in the Sacrament, but yet sacra- 
mentally and spiritually (according to 
His grace) giving life, and in that respect 
really, that is, according to His benedic- 
tion, giving life. ... The true Church of 
Christ doth acknowledge a presence of 
Christ’s Body in the Lord’s Supper to 
be communicated to the godly by grace 
and spiritually, as I have often showed, 
and by a sacramental signification, but 
not by the corporal presence of the Body 
of His Flesh.” — Works, Parker Eectotr, 
p- 280. 


“That heavenly Lamb is (as I confess) 
on the table: but by a spiritual pres 
ence, and not after any corporeal pres- 
ence of the Flesh taken of the Virgin 
Mary.” — Ibid. p. 249. 

“Both you and I agree in this, that in 
the Sacrament is the very true and nat- 
ural Body and Blood of Christ, even 
that which is born of the Virgin Mary 

. We confess all one thing to be in 
the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner 
of being there. I confess Christ’s natu- 
ral Body to be in the Sacrament by Spirit 
and grace. . You make a proper 
kind of being, inclosing a natural Body 
under the shape and form of bread and 
wine.” —Fox, Martyrs, 11. p. 1598. Lond. 
1597, cited by Laud against Fisher, § 85. 

δ Remains, 11. p. 5. 


712 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVOE 


in the midst of all them that be gathered together in His Name ; 
and this feeding is spiritual feeding and an heavenly feeding, far 
passing all corporal and carnal feeding, in deed and not in figure 
only, or not at all, as you most untruly report my saying to be.” } 
“I say that the same visible and palpable Flesh that was for us 
crucified, &c. &c., is eaten of Christian people at His Holy sup- 
per... The diversity is not in the Body, but in the eating there- 
of ; no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacra- 
mentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is, 
figuratively.” ἢ 

These sentiments of our reformers are undoubtedly embodied in 
our Liturgy and Articles. One thing indeed has been thought to 
savour of a tendency to Zuinglianism. ‘The first Service Book of 
Edward VI., drawn up undoubtedly after Cranmer had embraced 
the doctrine of the spiritual presence, contained, as did all the an- 
cient Liturgies, an invocation of the Holy Ghost to bless the bread 
and wine ; ‘that they might be unto us the Body and Blood of 
Christ.” This was omitted in the second Service Book ; probably 
lest the grace of the Sacrament should thus seem to be tied to the 
consecrated elements. But a still more remarkable departure from 
the ancient forms was this. Whereas, in the first Service Book, 
the words of administration were, “* The Body of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto 
eternal life ;” in the second Service Book they were merely, * Take 
and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on 
Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.” ® This seemed to im- 
ply that the reformers believed in no real spiritual reception of Christ’s 
Body in the Eucharist, but only in a remembrance of His death 
and passion. Accordingly, in the reign of Elizabeth the two forms 
were combined together, and have ever since continued in use in 
the Church. But though this change looked like an inclination on 
the part of the earlier reformers to the doctrine of the mere figu- 
rists, yet it is by no means certain that some of the alterations in 
the Service Book were agreeable to our leading divines ;* and not- 
withstanding this alteration, there remained numerous statements 
in our formularies to prove that a real but spiritual presence οὔ" 
Christ was, and is the doctrine of the reformed Church of Eng- 
land. 


Thus we are told in the exhortation to communion, that God 


1 Rem os It. p , 289. ὃ Two Liturgies of Edward VI. p. 297. 
* Tbid. p. 840 Me ae ‘also 11. p. 441, rv. Oxf. 1888. y 
p. 16. * See above, p. 12, note 1. 


Sgc. 1.1 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


713 


“hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for 
us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy 
Sacrament.” It is said that, “if with a true penitent heart and 
lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament... . we spiritually eat 
the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood.’ In what is called the 
“ς prayer of humble access,” we ask that God would “ give us grace 
so to eat the Flesh of His dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His 
Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and 
our souls washed through His most precious Blood.” In the prayer 
of consecration, we speak of being ““ partakers of His most blessed 
Body and Blood; ” and in the post-communion we thank God that 
He doth “ vouchsafe to feed us with the spiritual food of the most 
precious Body and Blood of His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.” So 
likewise in this Article it is professed, that *¢ to them who worthily 
receive, .... the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body 
of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the 
Blood of Christ.”” All these are expressions in the second Service 
Book of Edward VI., and in the Articles drawn up in that reign. 
The latter part of the Catechism is of later date, but in strict 
accordance with the earlier documents. Its words are, that “ the 
Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re- 
ceived by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” 

In this XXVIIIth Article, as first drawn up A. Ὁ. 1552, there 
was a clause stating, that Christ in bodily presence is in Heaven, 
and therefore that we ought not to confess “ the real and bodily pres- 
ence (as they term it) of Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament 
of the Lord’s Supper.” This nearly corresponds with the state- 
ment of the rubric at the end of our present communion Service.? 
Both the clause in the Article and the rubric were omitted in 
Elizabeth’s reign, lest persons inclined to the Lutheran belief 
might be too much offended by it; and many such were in the 
Church, whom it was wished to edoesclbicty The rubric was again 
restored in the reign of Charles II. The meaning of it clearly is, 
not to deny a spiritual, but only a “‘ corporal presence of Christ’s 
natural Flesh and Blood,” ‘and a consequent adoration of the 


1 Concerning that rubrie see above, p. 
106, note 1, p. 113, note 2. 

Luther much insisted on the ubiquity 
of the human nature of our blessed Lord, 
derived to it from the union with the 
Divine nature. But we must not believe 
the human nature transubstantiated into 
the Divine, as Eutyches taught. 

St. Augustine observes that Christ, ac- 
cording to His human nature, is now on 


90 


God’s right hand, and thence shall come 
to judgment; and according to that na- 
ture Heisnoteverywhere. ‘ Cavendum 
est enim, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus 
hominis, ut veritatem Corporis aufera- 
mus.” — Epist. 187, Tom. τι. p. 681, 
quoted above, p. 118, note 2. See this 
subject most admirably handled by 
Hooker, E. P. v. 55. 


OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVIL 


114 


elements, as though they did not remain still in their very natural 
substances.” 

The Homilies are very express. ‘¢ Thus much we must be sure 
to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, 
no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent (Matt. xxvi.); but 
as the Scripture saith, The table of the Lord, the bread and cup 
of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of His death, 
yea, the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a mar- 
vellous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost 
(the very bond of our conjunction with Christ) 15. through faith 
wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls 
live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a 
resurrection to immortality ”} (1 Cor. x.) 

Bishop Jewel, who perhaps was the chief writer of this Second 
Book of Homilies, says in his Apology: ‘* We plainly pronounce 
in the Supper the Body and Blood of the Lord, the Flesh of the 
Son of God, to be truly exhibited to those who believe.”’? And 
again, after protesting against transubstantiation, he says, ‘ yet 
when we say this, we do not lower the Lord’s Supper, nor make it 
a mere frigid ceremony. We assert, that Christ exhibits Himself 
really present in the Sacraments; in baptism, that we may put 
Him on, in His Supper, that we may feed on Him by faith and in 
spirit... . and this we say is not done perfunctorily, nor frigidly, 
but in very deed and truly.” ® 

It appears, then, that our reformers symbolized herein with Cal- 
vin; though it is not likely that they learned their doctrine from 
-him. Points of difference may be discovered between them; but 
in the main, Calvin, Melancthon in his later views, and the Angli- 
can divines, were at one. There have, no doubt, been different 
ways of explaining the spiritual presence, among those who have 
agreed to acknowledge such a presence. But perhaps the safest 
plan is to say, that because it is spiritual, therefore it needs must be 
mystical. And so Bishop Taylor concludes, that our doctrine dif- 
fers not from that of ancient writers, who acknowledged Christ’s 
presence, but would not define the manner of His presence. For 


1 Second Book of Homilies, “First part 
of the Sermon Concerning the Sacra- 
ment.” 

* “Diserteque pronunciamus in ccena 
credentibus vere exhiberi Corpus et San- 
— Domini, carnem Filii οὶ." — 

uelli Apologia. Ench, Theolog. p. 126. 

* “Non tamen cum ἰδία dicimus, ex- 
tenuamus Cenam Domini aut eam frigi- 
dam tantum caremoniam esse docemus. 


.... Christum enim asserimus, vere 
sese presentem exhibere in sacramentis 
suis ; in baptismo, ut Eum induamus, in 
ceena, ut Eum fide et spiritu comedamus, 
et de Ejus cruce et sanguine habeamus 
vitam eternam ; idque dicimus non per- 
functorie et frigide, sed re ipsa et vere 
fieri.”” — Ibid. p. 129. Compare Noel’s 
Catechism, Ench, Theol. p. 320, where 
the same doctrine is propounded. 


Src. IL] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 715 


he observes that we say, “the presence of Christ is real, and it is 
spiritual ; and this account still leaves the Article in its deepest 
mystery; because spiritual perfections are indiscernible, and the 
word ‘ spiritual’ is a very general term, particular in nothing but 
that it excludes the corporal and natural.” ! 

It would be endless, and it is unnecessary, to say much con- 
cerning our divines since the Reformation. Some perhaps, who 
have followed Calvin in his predestinarian theory, have followed, 
not him, but Zuingle, upon the Sacraments. And this too may 
have been the bent of those who afterwards more especially fol- 
lowed Arminius, both here and on the Continent.2 But from the 
time of the Reformation to the present, all the great luminaries «i 
our Church have maintained the doctrine which appears in the 
face of our formularies; agreeing to deny a corporal, and to 
acknowledge a spiritual feeding in the Supper of the Lord. It is 
scarcely necessary to recount the names of Mede, Andrewes, Hooker, 
Taylor, Hammond, Cosin, Bramhall, Usher, Pearson, Patrick, 
Bull, Beveridge, Wake, Waterland. All these have left us writ- 
ings on the subject, and all have coincided, with but very slight 
diversity, in the substance of their belief. They have agreed, as 
Hooker says, that ‘‘ Christ is personally present; albeit a part of 
Christ be corporally absent ; ᾿ 8 that “the fruit of the Eucharist is 
the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ ” — but that “ the 
real presence of Christ’s most blessed Body and Blood is not to be 
sought for in the Sacrament (ὦ. 6. in the elements) ; but in the 
worthy receiver of the Sacrament.” 4 





Section II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


I. The Words of Institution. 


E know that almost all the sacrifices, among both Jews and 
Gentiles, were succeeded by a feast upon the body of the 
sacrificed victim; the persons, who thus fed upon the sacrifice, 
declaring their interest in the sacred rite, and through it entering 


1 Jer. Taylor, § 1. 2. if I understand it, its doctrine is purely 
2 There is a very pious work by one Zuinglian. 

of the Arminian writers in the English ὃ. Book v. lxvii. 11. 

Church (Horneck’s Crucified Jesus). It * Book v. xvii. 6. 

has much to edify and spiritualize, but 


a 


716 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVIIL 


into covenant with the God.1 Now the Passover was the most 
solemn and significant of all the sacrifices of the Law, the most 
remarkable of all the types of our redemption. In its first institu- 
tion, it was ordained that the lamb should be slain, evidently in 
the way of a propitiatory offering,’ in order that the destroying 
angel, which smote the Egyptians, might not destroy those for 
whom this offering was made. Yet no one had a claim to exemp- 
tion from the destruction, except those on whose lintels and door- 
posts the blood of the lamb was sprinkled, and who had partaken 
of the feast upon the lamb slain, — they and all their households.* 
The feast was, as it were, the consummation of the sacrifice; the 
efficacy of the latter being assured only to those who partook of 
the former. 

It is not a little observable then, that our blessed Saviour, the 
night before He suffered, or (if we take the Jewish reckoning from 
evening to evening) the very day on which He suffered, super- 
seded the typical feast of the Passover by the commemorative 


‘feast of the Eucharist. He first, according to the Law, ate the 


Passover with His disciples. Then, supper being ended,* and 
probably after He had washed the feet of His disciples,® He 
instituted a new rite appropriate to the New Covenant, but with 
peculiar reference to the rite under the Old Covenant. With 
the Passover, by Divine ordinance, there had been always eaten 
unleavened bread; and, by immemorial custom, there had been 
four cups of wine poured out; over each of which thanks were 
offered up, “‘and of which the third cup was specially called the 
cup of blessing.” ® Now the bread and the wine, thus eaten and 
drunk solemnly at the Passover, our Lord adopts, as the signs 
or elements for the institution of His new Sacrament. The 
bread at the Passover was blessed and broken, the wine was 
blessed and poured out.7 These same ceremonies our Lord 
now uses. He breaks the bread and blesses it; He pours out the 
wine and blesses it. In the feast of the Passover the bread and 
wine hal been but subordinate; the latter not even of Divine 
authority. Our Lord makes them now the chief. Before, the 
chief place had been occupied by the Paschal Lamb. It was slain 
and eaten in commemoration of the first Passover, in type and 


1 See Cudworth, Zrue Notion of the 4 μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, Luke xxii. 20. 
Lord’s Supper, ch. 1. δ᾽ John xiii. 2, seg. 

® See the true sacrificial nature of the ὃ Buxtorf, De Cana Dom. § 22; Light 
Placenta! proved, Cudworth, as above. foot, H. ἢ. on Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. 


mie 7 Lightfoot, Ibid. 
8 Exod. xii. 2-18, 


Sec. II.] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


T1T 


anticipation of the Saviour Himself. But now that the type was 
succeeded by the antitype, and that the feast must therefore be 
commemorative, not anticipatory, our Lord puts the bread and 
wine in place of the flesh of the Lamb; that, as the latter had been 
eaten as a type of Him, so the former should be eaten and drunk 
in remembrance of Him. 

It has been observed, that the lamb, when set on the table to 
be eaten at the Passover, was commonly called by the Jews “the 
body of the Paschal Lamb;” and it seems not unnatural to sup- 
pose that our Lord, as adopting otherwise on this occasion their 
customs and language, should here also have alluded to their 
common phrase. They had spoken of eating “the body of the 
lamb” (mozm iyn> dw ipa), and when He blessed the Bread, 
He said of it, “This is My Body;” as though He would say, 
«ς Heretofore you ate the body of the Lamb, a type of Me to be 
delivered to death for you. Now I abrogate this forever; and 
instead, I give you My Body to be crucified and broken for you; 
and so hereafter, when you eat this bread, think not of the 
Paschal Lamb, which, like all types, is now done away in Me; but 
believe that you feed on My Body broken, to deliver you, not 
from Egyptian bondage, but from the far worse bondage of death 
and hell.” Ὁ 

Again, when our Lord had broken and blessed the bread, and 
giving it to His disciples, had called it His Body, He then took 
the cup, poured it out, blessed it, and called it His Blood. And 
it is observable that, as when Moses sprinkled the people with the 
blood of the sacrifice, he said of it, “" Behold the blood of the 
Covenant ;”’? so our Lord and Saviour, in giving His disciples this 
cup to drink, said of it, ‘* This is My Blood of the New Covenant” 
(Matt. xxvi. 27; Mark xiv. 24). 

In almost all respects then, the institution of the Eucharist 
was likened to the sacrificial feasts of the Jews ; most especially to 
the feast of the Passover.? It had only this point of difference: 


1 Buxtorf, De Cena Dom. § 25 ; Light- 
foot, H. H. on Luke xxii. 19. 

2 Exod. xxiv. 8; Heb. ix. 20. 

3 A question has been raised whether 
our Saviour and His disciples had been 
eating the Paschal lamb or not, before He 
instituted the Eucharist ; the ground for 
the question being that other well-known 
doubt, namely, Was the Thursday or the 
Friday the day on which the Passover 
ought to be eaten? However this latter 
may be solved, there seems no possibility 
of evading the force of Luke xxii. 15: 


‘« With desire have I desired to eat this 
Passover with you before I suffer.” 
(Comp. Matt. xxvi. 17-19; Mark xiv. 
12-16). The true solution of the diffi- 
culty has always appeared to me to be 
this. The commandment was that the 
Passover should be slain on the 14th 
day of the month, “ between the two 
evenings,” DDI Pa (Exod. xii. 6); 


that is to say, from’ the evening of the 
14th to the evening of the 15th day 
of the month, according to the commor 


OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. {[Arr. XXVIIL 


718 
that, whereas in all the ancient feasts the victim was actually killed, 
and then its natural body was eaten ; here the feast was instituted 
(though on the day of His death, yet) before our blessed Lord was 
crucified, and bread and wine were substituted in the room of His 
natural Flesh and Blood. Yet the bread and wine He called His 
Body and Blood; even as the flesh of the lamb was called the 
body of the Paschal lamb. And we can scarcely fail to infer that, 
as the flesh of the old sacrifice was never called the Body of 
Christ, but (what it really was) the body of the lamb, and as on 
the contrary the elements in the newly founded feast were called 
the Body and Blood of Christ, so the new festival must have had 
a closer connection with the great and true sacrifice than had the 
slaughtered victim, which represented Him in the old festival. The 
bread and wine were His Body and Blood, in a sense beyond that 
in which the Paschal lamb was Christ ; that is to say, not merely 
in a figure, but in more than a figure. 

Now this the very nature of the case would lead us to expect. 
Under the Law were mere lifeless ceremonies; but under the 
Gospel there is substance, instead of shadow. Under the Law 
there were sacrifices of slain beasts ; and the feast was therefore 
on the flesh of slain beasts. But under the Gospel there is no 
sacrifice, but of the Lamb of God; and a feast upon the sacrifice 
must therefore be a feeding upon Him; and we may add, that 
though the Law were true as coming from God, yet emphatically 
and peculiarly the Gospel is the truth. Hence, if in the legal 
ceremony there was a true feeding upon the victim, we cannot 
doubt that in the Gospel Sacrament there is a true feeding on 
the Saviour. And yet once more, the Law was carnal, but the 
Gospel is spiritual. And so, whereas the Paschal festival involved 
a carnal eating of the typical sacrifice, we infer that the Eucha- 
ristic festival would involve a spiritual eating of the true Sacrifice. 
And hence, as in all respects the Passover squared well with the 
place it occupied in its own dispensation, the Eucharist would fall 
into its place in the higher dispensation. The one a feast on a 
sacrifice ; the other a feast on a Sacrifice. The one on the lamb ; 


the other on the Lamb of God. 


Jewish mode of counting time. Thus 
our Lord ate the Passover on the right 
day, i.e. on the evening of the 14th; 
ag He was crucified on the same day ; 

r from evening to evening was but a 
singls day. And this will solve all the dif- 
ficulty in John xviii. 28 ; for many of the 
Jews may not have eaten the Passover 


The one true; the other true. 


on the morning of the Friday, though 
our Lord had eaten it on the evening of 
the Thursday. See Duty of Observing the 
Christian Sabbath, by Samuel Lee, D. D., 
&c. note 15; where he quotes the Ge 
mara on the Jerusalem Talmud in con- 
ar ge of this interpretation of Exod 
xii. 6. 


Sro ΠῚ OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 719 


But the one carnally true ; the other spiritually, and therefore even 
more true. 

There are three things especially to be observed in the form of 
institution: 1, the blessing ; 2, the declaration; 3, the command. 

1. The blessing. ‘ Jesus took bread and blessed it:”’ so say St. 
Matthew (xxvi. 26) and St. Mark (xiv. 22). This was the cus- 
tom with the Jews. The master of the house pronounced over the 
bread a form of benediction, placing both his hands upon it. And 
this blessing, we are told, was by them called wisqp 7. 6. sanctifica- 
tion! Whether or not our Lord adopted the common form οἵ 
words, we cannot tell. At all events, He gave utterance to some 
words of blessing, whereby He set apart the bread from its common 
use, to a new, sacramental and sacred purpose. 

For blessed (εὐλογήσας) St. Luke (xxii. 17) and St. Paul (1 Cor. 
xi. 24) have gave thanks (εὐχαριστήσας). The words seem nearly 
synonymous. ‘They are so used concerning the blessing of the 
bread, when our Lord fed the four thousand with the seven loaves 
(Mark viii. 6, 7): the Vulgate translates (εὐχαριστία) by benedictio 
(1 Cor. xiv. 16): and the Hebrew word yn 5 to bless, is rendered 
indifferently by words which signify either blessing or thanksgiving. 
And so, no doubt, our Lord and Saviour, when consecrating this 
bread to a sacred ordinance, gave thanks to God His Father, and 
with the thanksgiving joined a blessing; which changed the bread, 
not in substance, not in quantity, not in quality — but in use, in 
purpose, in sanctity ; so that what before was common, now became 
sacramental bread ; even the sacrament and mystery of the Body 
of Christ.? eh 

2. From the blessing we pass to the declaration : — 

“‘ Take, eat; this is My Body.” So St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. 
Luke, St. Paul. St. Luke adds, “‘ which is given for you” (xxii. 
19). St. Paul, “which is broken for you” (1 Cor. xi. 24). 

There is a little more difference in their account of the cup. St. 
Matthew and St. Mark say, “‘ This cup is My Blood of the new 
Testament which is shed for many.’ St. Luke and St. Paul say, 
“This cup is the new testament in My Blood.” 

We have already compared these phrases with the Jewish form 
of speech, and have seen how the one throws light upon the other. 
We have seen also reason to infer, that the ordinance thus insti- 
tuted was for the purpose of a spiritual feast upon the one true 
Sacrifice, a feeding on the Body and the Blood of Christ. But 


1 Buxtorf, as above, § 46. : 
3 Thid. ὃ 48. Compare Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. v. 8. 


ἘΥΨΎΥ ΡΨ. ΝῚ ——_ a. ae - = 


Ἂς 


120 OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Arr. XXVIIL 


we have now come to a point, where those who believe in the 
verity of the feeding upon Christ, branch off from each other into 
two opposed and unhappily hostile divisions. The Protestant ad- 
mits that the words of institution assure us of the blessing of feed- 
ing upon Christ, and give us ground to call the consecrated ele- 
ments Christ’s Body and Blood. But the Romanist maintains, 
that they moreover assure us that the bread, when blessed, no 
longer remains bread, but has become the very natural Flesh of 
Christ, and in a like manner the wine His natural Blood. The 
Romanist reasons from the plain meaning of the words, and the 
duty reverently to believe what Christ has spoken. “This is My 
Body ;”’ therefore it is no longer bread. And to make it clearer, 
they say that, whereas the substantive ‘‘ bread ’’ (ἄρτος ) is masculine, 
the relative ‘‘ this” (τοῦτον is neuter ; and that therefore the word 
this means not, ‘ This Bread is My Body;” but on the contrary 
means, ‘ This, which is no longer bread, is My Body.”! The 
grammatical argument is too futile to keep us long. Bread, being 
a thing without life, though in Greek and Latin it is expressed by 
a masculine substantive, in wellnigh all languages might be re- 
ferred to by a neuter pronoun; and though we could not say Hoe 
est frater meus ; yet we may say Hoc est aqua, or Hoe est panis. 
Nay ! would it not have been a more singular mode of speech, if 
our Lord, when He took the bread in His hand, instead of saying 
concerning it, τοῦτο, hoe, this thing, had said, οὗτος, hic, he ? 

But more weight lies in the verb ἐστὶ, is ; and yet, if no better 
argument than its use could be adduced, we must admit that the 
mere figurists have almost as strong ground as the transubstanti- 
alists. Ifthe simple use of the substantive verb proves an absolute 
change of substance, how are we to interpret “* The seed is the 
word ; the field is the world ; the reapers are the angels; the har- 
vest is the end of the world; I am the door; I am the vine ?”’’? 
We cannot here understand a substantial change, but must admit 
a figure of speech. And so, in truth, we must admit in the Eucha- 
rist; for though we acknowledge Christ’s presence, and not only 
acknowledge but rejoice in it; yet we hold not that presence to be 
in the material bread ; nor can these words prove that it is there. 
The passage which perhaps most nearly corresponds to this, is 
that wherein St. Paul says that “ That Rock was Christ ” (1 Cor. 
x. 4). It is indeed generally contended that the Rock was Christ 
by a mere figure of speech; and hence the illustration is urged to 
support the doctrine of the figurists. But this is scarcely true. 

* Bellarmine, Lib, 1. De Eucharistia, ch. x. % See Taylor, Real Presence, sect. V1. 


Src. IL] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 721 


If the illustration be correctly interpreted, it will prove the real 
but the spiritual presence of the Body of Christ. The Apostle’s 
argument is strictly this: The Israelites, in their pilgrimage in 
the wilderness, were like Christians, subjects of grace. Christ 
followed, and Christ fed them. They had bread from Heaven, 
and drank out of the rock; and as the literal manna fed their 
bodies, so there was a heavenly manna prepared for their souls. 
And as from the rock of stone Moses called forth the stream of 
water; so there was with them also a spiritual Rock, by which 
their souls were watered ; and that spiritual “* Rock was Christ.” 
It was not then, we may observe, that the spiritual Rock was a 
figure of Christ. The rock of stone was a figure of Christ ; but the 
spiritual Rock — ‘that Rock was Christ.” So it is in the Eucha- 


rist. The bread in the Eucharist is an emblem of the Bread of 
life: but that Bread is Christ. As with the natural rock in the 


wilderness there was present the Spiritual Rock, which is Christ : 
so with the natural bread in the Sacrament there is present the 
Spiritual Bread, which is Christ’s Body. 

And next for the cup. Our Lord calls it,“ My Blood of the 
new Covenant;” or, according to St. Luke, ‘* The new Covenant 
in My Blood! which is shed for you.” The reference here to the 
language of the old Testament, and to the rites of sacrifice, has 
been already noticed.? If we take the words as recorded by St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, “ This is My Blood of the new Covenant,” 
they will mean, “ As in the old dispensation God made covenant 
with Israel with the blood of beasts, so now He makes covenant 
with Christians through the Blood of Christ ; and this wine is the 
emblem of that Blood, and the means of partaking of its benefits.” 
If we take St. Luke’s version (which is also St. Paul’s), then we 
must understand, ‘* The blood of old was the sign and pledge of 
the Covenant, the medium of its ratification. This cup is the sign 
and pledge of the new Covenant, which is now to be ratified in 
My Blood.” 


In either case we see obviously in the Eucharist a federal rite. 


ΕἼ unhesitatingly translate Covenant, 
not Testament, believing that διαϑήκη 
should always in the Bible be rendered 
Covenant. The only apparent exception 
is in Heb. ix. 15-20. Even here, how- 
ever, Covenant will probably make the 
more pertinent sense. See Professor 
Schoen Hints for a New Translation, 
a 

2 τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἧ καινὴ διαϑήκη ἐν 
τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον 
(Tuke xxii. 20). The participle prop- 

91 


erly agrees with ποτήριον, though it 
may by ἃ solecism refer to aiva. Light- 
foot H. H. in loc. says, ‘‘ This seems to 
have reference to that cup of wine which 
was every day poured out in the drink- 
offerings in the daily sacrifice, for that 
also was poured out for the remission of 
sins. So that the bread may have refer- 
ence to the body of the daily sacrifice, 
and the cup to the wine of the drink. 
offering.” 


722 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. — [Arr. XXVIIL 


As sacrifices, and especially feasts on sacrifices, were the means of 
ratifying covenants between man and man, or between man and 
God; so the Eucharistic feast upon the Sacrifice is the means of 
ratifying the covenant between the Lord and His people. The 
Blood of the covenant was shed upon the cross. So peace has been 
made. But the peace is accepted, and the covenant assured by 
this sacred banquet ; where we are God’s guests, and where the 
spiritual food spread for us is the Lamb slain for our sins, and where 
our souls may be washed by His most precious Blood. 

3. The third thing to be observed in the institution of the Eu- 
charist is the command, “ This do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 
xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25). 

This do, τοῦτο ποιεῖτ. Hoe facite. Do what? Make My 
Body? Sacrifice Me? If our Lord had commanded them to make 
His Body, why did He say ‘tin remembrance of Me?” Remem- 
brance and actual bodily presence are scarcely compatible ideas. 
Besides, did our Lord then sacrifice Himself? Surely not. It 
was the next morning that He offered up Himself a Sacrifice ; not 
then, when He sat with them at meat. But, just as, when the first 
Passover was instituted, the Israelites were commanded ‘ to keep 
this feast by an ordinance for ever” (Exod. xii. 14; xiii. 10),— to 
sacrifice the lamb and eat it, as they had been instructed by Moses: 
so the disciples are commanded to observe this new feast, even as 
they were instructed by their Master and Lord. ‘ Do this,” ὁ. 6. 
“Do what you now see Me do.” Break the bread, bless it, and 
consecrate it; then distribute among yourselves, and eat it; and 
likewise with the wine. And this all is to be done “in remem- 
brance of Me.” The Passover was in remembrance of the deliy- 
erance from Egypt and from the destruction of the first-born ; and 
when it was kept, the Israelites were to tell their children what the 
ordinance meant (Exod. xiii. 8). But this Sacrament is a remem- 
brance of greater deliverance, and of that gracious Master who 
wrought the deliverance ; and “as often as we eat this bread and 
drink this cup, we do shew the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Cor. 
xi. 26). In all ways therefore it may be a remembrance of Christ ; 
but specially it is a remembrance of His death. It is a memorial, a 
showing forth of that sacrifice which He offered onthe cross, and 
which we feed upon in our souls. As it is a commemoration of 
the sacrifice, so may it be called a commemorative sacrifice. But, 
as Christ was Himself present alive when He instituted the ordi- 
nance, and as He did not then offer up Himself a sacrifice on the 

1 See Cudworth, as above, ch. v1. 


Sxe. II] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 723° 


cross, nor hold in His own sacred hands His own crucified Body ; 
so we believe not, that we are commanded to offer Him up afresh, 
or that we are to expect to feed upon His natural Flesh and Blood. 
His Body has been offered up once for all, a full, perfect, and suffi- 
cient sacrifice. We may present the remembrance of that sacrifice to 
God, may tell it out to the world, may believe that, whilst we eat 
the symbols with our mouths, we feed upon the Saviour in our: 
spirits; but we have no warrant to believe, and we could find no 
greater comfort in believing, that Christ was to be newly sacrificed 
every day, and His very Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunk 
by our bodily mouths. 


II. Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum. John vi. 


A great many, both of the Roman Catholic divines and of the 
mere figurists, have denied that the discourse in the sixth chapter 
of St. John has any reference to the grace of the Eucharist. The’ 
motive of such denial is obvious; for it is next to impossible to ad- 
mit that the Eucharist is there referred to, without also admitting 
that no material presence is tenable, and at the same time, that 
some real spiritual feeding of the soul is promised. It is said in- 
deed that the discourse was delivered before the Eucharist was in- 
stituted, and therefore could not have applied to it: an argument, 
which must surely seem very strange, if we consider how very 
much our Lord’s discourses are anticipatory and prophetic. Indeed 
almost all His teaching seems suitable to instruct His followers in 
“the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” the things that 
were to be in His Church and reign upon earth, rather than suitable 
to the time of His bodily presence. So His discourse with Nicode- 
mus was as much anticipatory of the institution of baptism, as this 
discourse at Capernaum was of the institution of the Holy Commun- 
ion. And, to bring but one more example, if our Lord be never 
supposed to speak and to teach but concerning things already re- 
vealed and manifested, what could have been His meaning in His 
many declarations that Christians “must take up their Cross, and 
follow Him ;”} when as yet all those who heard Him knew not for 
certain that He would die at all, and most assuredly understood 
not “what death He should die?” 

It is quite clear then, that the mystery of the discourse in St. 
John vi. required something to make it intelligible. Many even 
of our Lord’s disciples were so offended at it, that they at once 
“went back, and walked no more with Him” (ver. 66). What 

1 See Matt. x. 88, xvi. 24; Mark viii. 84, x. 21; Luke ix. 28, xiv. 27. 


 ————— ‘ a ee a ee ee ΜΥΣΞΞΈΞ--ε::.ὔΦὕ:-:-:-Ῥ--- 
ἥ ᾽ς SZ ‘ J ὴ - 
Φ 


194 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Arr. XXVUL 


so sorely puzzled them must doubtless have sunk deep into their 
memories; and when next our blessed Saviour used the same lan- 
guage as He had used on this memorable occasion, is it not cer- 
tain, that His first words would recur with all their force, and that 
the teaching of the first discourse would be coupled with that of the 
second? Now the only occasions on which we read that Jesus 
said anything about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, 
were, first in this instance at Capernaum, secondly at the last Pass- 
over, when He instituted the Eucharist. How the disciples who 
heard both discourses could fail to couple them together, it is hard to 
conceive. In the former, inestimable blessings were said to accom- 
pany the eating and drinking of Christ’s Body and Blood: in the 
latter, a special mode appeared to be pointed out, by which His 
Body and Blood might be eaten and drunken. Both, no doubt, 
sounded strange and wonderful. Those who wondered at them 
both, would naturally compare the one with the other, to see if the 
one would not explain the other. 

And surely the one does explain the other. In the sixth chap- 
ter of St. John we read that our Lord had just fed five thousand 
men with five loaves and two fishes. ‘They who had seen the 
miracle, on the next day followed Jesus; but as He well knew, 
not for spiritual blessing, but that they might again be fed and be 
filled (v. 26). To this carnal and unbelieving multitude He en- 
joins, ‘that they should labour not for earthly, but for spiritual 
food, which endureth unto everlasting life” (v. 27); and taking 
oceasion of their own reference to the manna in the wilderness (v. 
31), He tells them, that, as God gave their fathers manna, so now 
He would give them “true bread from Heaven” (v. 32). He 
then declares Himself to be * the Bread of life: ᾿" and adds, “" he 
that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on 
Me shall never thirst” (v. 35), ὁ. e. neither hunger nor thirst, be- 
cause, thus coming and believing, he shall be fed upon the Bread 
of life. The Jews, who were present, now begin to murmur. 
They disbelieve the Saviour’s saying, that He had come down from 
Heaven, supposing that they knew both His father and His mother. 
He then goes on, not to explain His statements, but to enforce, and 
rather put them with more mystery and difficulty. He tells them 
that, not only had He come down from Heaven, that not only was 
He the Bread of life, but that, whereas the fathers ate manna and 
died, yet those who should eat that Bread, should never die. And 
then most startling words of all, He says that the bread which He 
should give was His Flesh, which he would give for the life of the 


See. IL] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 725 


world (v. 51). And when this saying caused fresh striving 
amongst them, He adds, “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except 
ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have 
no life in you. . . . My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is 
drink indeed. . . . As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live 
by the Father; so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me”’ 
(vv. 538-57). 

Now those who tell us that this had no reference to the Eu- 
charist, say that nothing is here meant but that faith in the death 
of Christ is-the great means of union to Christ, and that which 
raises us to life and immortality. But surely Calvin’s belief, that 
something more express and sublime is intended by such striking 
language, must commend itself to our reason. It is not the way of 
Scripture to expound to us simple doctrines by such mysterious lan- 
guage; but rather by simple figures and analogies to bring down 
deep doctrines in some degree to the level of our capacities. Yet, 
if all this discourse be merely to teach us that we must believe in 
the death of Christ, we have an example of most difficult language, 
and, we may add, language most likely to give offence, in order to 
express what requires no figures to make it intelligible, when sim- 
ply and plainly stated. But if it be true, that to those who believe 
in Christ, to those who come to Him believing, He, in some man- 
ner far above our comprehension, so communicates His blessed 
Self, so joins them to Him by an ineffable union, that they may be 
said to be one with Him, and He with them, that He dwelleth in 
them and they in Him, that as He liveth by the Father so they 
live by Him ; —if this and the like of this be true, then can we 
understand, that some deep language, some strong metaphors, may 
be needful to express the doctrine, and that the greater and more 
mysterious the blessing, the stranger and more hard to understand 
may be the language. 

Now, certainly it is true that the faithful Christian lives by 
union to the glorified, divine humanity of His Lord. Christ, who 
is one with the Father by His Godhead, becomes one with His 
disciples by His manhood: and by an union with us, which is in- 
effable, and to be comprehended only by a devout and reverent 
believing, He supports, sustains, and feeds that spiritual life which 
He creates in us. That this is one chief fruit of His incarnation, 
all Scripture bears witness. That this, and perhaps much more 
than this, is taught in the chapter we are considering, there can be 
no reasonable question. And, although faith is an essential instru- 
ment for enabling us to receive such blessing (see v. 35); yet 


726 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.  [Anr. XXVIIL 


‘something much deeper and sublimer than the mere act of beliey- 
ing is plainly intended by it, —even that in spirit we are truly 
joined to the Man Christ Jesus, our great Head and Lord; that 
our whole spiritual man is sustained and nourished by Him; that 
by His life we live; by His might and power our weakness is up- 
held and strengthened. We do not presume to say that this is all 
the mystery conveyed to us by the language of our Lord. But 
this we may boldly affirm is the character, though it be not the sum 
of the mystery. And when we come to find the like language used 
by Him concerning the holy ordinance which He established at 
His passion, can we fail to infer, that with that ordinance, rightly 
and faithfully partaken of, are communicated those very blessings 
which in the discourse at Capernaum are so marvellously ex- 
pressed ? 

Such thoughts must free us from the frigid notions of the disci- 
ples of Zuinglius; but will they lead us to the carnal notions of 
the transubstantialists? Most surely, No! There are two state- 
ments, in the chapter we are considering, quite fatal to the doctrine 
of the material presence. One is, where our Lord tells us that 
whosoever eats of the bread of life shall ‘not die” (ver. 51), 
“shall live for ever” (ver. 58): that “" πὸ who eateth His Flesh 
and drinketh His Blood, hath eternal life”? (ver.54). Now, if the 
bread and wine in the communion are changed into the substance 
of the Body and Blood, then every unworthy partaker, notwith- 
standing his unworthiness, partakes of Christ’s Body and Blood ; 
and hence, according to this chapter, eating the bread of life shall 
“not die’ —* shall live for ever” —‘ hath eternal life.” He 
cannot, as St. Paul says, eat to condemnation, but must eat to sal- 
vation. The other statement is stronger still. When those who 

heard murmured at our Lord’s promise to feed them with His Flesh 
and Blood, Jesus said unto them, “ Doth this offend you? What 
and if ye shall see (ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε) the Son of Man ascend where 

‘He was before? ΤῈ is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth 
nothing ; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they 
are life” (vv. 61-63). Do my words offend you? If ye see 
Me ascend where I was before, how then will ye judge? Will ye 
then be still more offended, thinking my words still more impossi- 
ble? Or will ye then begin to understand the truth, and to know 
that they must be spiritually interpreted? The mistake ye have 
made, is that ye have interpreted them carnally. But it is the 
spirit which profiteth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words 
that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Such 


Sxc. IL] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 727 


was the obvious meaning of our Lord’s reply ; and it penetrates to 
the very depths of the difficulty. The meaning of the discourse 
was all spiritual. The feeding on Christ’s Body and Blood is a 
spiritual feeding. No other feeding profits. It would do no good. 
To eat the material substance of His Flesh, and drink the material 
substance of His Blood, would be useless. It is the spirit only 
which gives life ; and the words which He had spoken, were spirit 
and life. And be it noted, whether the discourse did, by anticipa- 
tion, concern the Eucharist, or whether it did not, yet this much is 
clear: we have it revealed in the unfailing and unerring words of 
our Redeemer, that carnally to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood 
would profit us nothing ; and therefore we may be assured infalli- 
bly, that such a carnal feeding, being profitless, would never have 
been ordained by Him in a Sacrament for His Church. 


III. The statements of St. Paul. 


These occur in 1 Cor. x. and 1 Cor. xi. 

The argument from the former chapter (1 Cor. x.) is of this 
nature. The Christians of Corinth, living among idolaters, were 
tempted to join in idol-feasts, at which meats that had been 
offered in sacrifice were solemnly and religiously eaten. However 
innocent it may be to eat meat of any kind, St. Paul points out 
that it is no longer innocent when the eating it implies a partici- 
pating in an idolatrous ceremony, especially an idolatrous sacrifice. 
He that partakes of a sacrificial feast declares thereby his respect 
for the sacrifice, and his interest in it. He claims to be a partaker 
of the sacrifice. ‘The Apostle illustrates this in three ways: first, 
by our participation of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist 
(vv. 16, 17); secondly, by the Jews’ participation in the sacrifices 
of which they eat; thirdly, by the heathen’s participation of the 
sacrifices of demon-gods. ΤῸ take the last two illustrations ‘‘rst. 
He observes with regard to “ Israel after the flesh,” that “ they 
which eat of the sacrifices are partakers (κοινωνοὶ) of the altar.” 
That is to say, by eating of the meat of the sacrifice they have a 
share, a participation in the benefit of that which is offered on the 
altar (v.18). As for the Gentiles, he says, that they offer sac- 
rifice, not to God, but to demon-gods (δαιμονίοις) : and it is 
unbecoming in Christians to be partakers or communicants 
(κοινωνοὶ) of demon-gods. Nay! it is altogether inconsistent to 
drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of demon-gods ; te 
partake of the Lord’s table, and the table of demon-gods (vv. 20, 
21); the ‘table of demon-gods ” here meaning the feast upon the 


728 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Arr. XXVIUIL 


heathen sacrifices, ‘‘ the table of the Lord” meaning the banquet 
of the Holy Communion, and probably alluding to Malachi. i. 
7, 12; where the expression “ table of the Lord ” is used in imme- 
diate connection with the word ‘ altar,” and refers to the sacrificial 
feasting connected with the Jewish sacrifices. In juxtaposition 
then, and immediate comparison with these feasts on Jewish and 
heathen offerings, St. Paul places the Christian festival of the 
Eucharist ; and as he tells the Corinthians, that the Israelites in 
their feasts were partakers of the altar, and the heathen partook 
of the table of devils, so he says, Christians partake of the Lord’s 
table. But more than this, he asks, ‘* The cup of blessing which 
we bless, is it not a joint-partaking (κοινωνία) of the Blood of 
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a joint-partaking 
of the Body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and 
one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (vy. 16, 17). 
The natural signification of the word κοινωνία, and the sense de- 
ducible from the context, require that it should be rendered, as 
above, joint-partaking or joint-participation.! The parallel is be- 
tween partaking of idol sacrifices, partaking of Jewish sacrifices, 
and partaking of the Christian Sacrifice, 7. e. Christ. And the 
17th verse is added to show, that by such participation there is a 
joint fellowship, not only with Christ, the Head, but with His 
whole Body the Church. 

Now, what must we infer from this teaching? Does it not 
plainly tell us, that the feeding at the Lord’s table corresponds with 
the feeding at the Jewish altar and the heathen idol-feasts. That, 
as the latter gave them participation in their sacrifices and their 
demon-gods, so the former gives us participation of Christ's Body 
and Blood! This much we cannot, and we would not deny. The 
bread and wine are to us means or instruments, whereby, through 
God’s grace, we become partakers of the sacrifice of the Body and 
Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, must we therefore infer, 
that we partake of Christ’s Body, naturally and materially? The 
very words appear to teach us otherwise. If there were a real 
shange of the elements into Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood, it 
seems altogether unaccountable, that the force of the argument 
should have been weakened by the introduction of the word 
κοινωνία participation. If the bread be literally and substantially 


1 κοίνος common, xowdw to make com- narily uses κοινωνία for partaking. See 2 
mon, impart, κοινωνὸς a partaker, κοινωνία Cor. viii. 4, ix.3. Comp. κοινωνοὶ ix. 18. 
poecteston: This is the natural mean- In Rom. xv. 26, Heb. xiii. 16, κοινωνία is 
Ng. xotvwvia means also close commun- communication. 
ion or joint partnership, St. Paul ordi- 


Sec. II] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 729 


the Body, it would have been more natural to say, “Is not the 
bread which we break, Christ’s Body ?”’ And the inference would 
be immediate; Can we eat Christ's Body and demon-sacrifices 
together? The word κοινωνία, on which the peculiar strength of 
the passage depends, whilst it clearly points to the Eucharistic 
elements as ordained means to enable us to partake of the Body 
and Blood of Christ, yet shows too that they are means of partak- 
ing, not themselves changed into the substance of that which they 
represent. ‘They are ordained, that we may partake of Christ ; 
but they are not Christ themselves. 

The other passage of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 19-30) has the same 
object as that which we have just considered ; namely, to increase 
our reverence for ‘ the dignity of this holy mystery.”” The early 
Christians appear to have joined with the reception of the commun- 
ion an agape or love-feast. In such a feast it was seemly, that 
the rich should provide for the poor, and that all things should be 
in common. But in Corinth, a city long famous for luxury, the 
richer Christians appear to have overlooked the Christian principle, 
and to have made their feasts of charity minister to their own 
indulgence, rather than to their poor neighbours’ wants. This was 
in itself wrong; it was not, as the Apostle says, to eat the Lord’s 
supper ;} and it was despising the church of God, — shaming those 
who had no houses to feast in. And what made it worst of all 
was this, that with these feasts of charity was joined a reception 
of the Holy Communion ; and to receive that at a time when some 
were feasting gluttonously, and others suffering from hunger, was 
to treat contemptuously the most sacred and blessed ordinance of 
the Lord. It was receiving that Sacrament unworthily. It was 
not only treating the agape as a private feast, and one in which 
self-indulgence was permissible, but it was making the Eucharist 
itself a common thing. 

To enforce his lesson on this subject, the Apostle reminds the 
Corinthians of the mode and the words in which our Lord had 
instituted the Eucharist. This part of his teaching we have 
already considered. But he goes on to reason that, as our Lord 
had instituted bread and wine as Sacraments of His Body and 
Blood, ‘‘ therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this 
cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood 


1 κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν, vy. 20.. This On the Eucharist, ch. 1. 8; Suicer, 8. v. 
probably does not refer to the Eucharist, ᾿Αγαπαὶ; Cave, Primitive Christianity, pt. 
but to the Agape, the feast of charity, 1. ch. 11.; Bingham, HZ. A. Bk. xv. ch 
which was joined with it. See Ham- vit. §§ 6, 7, 9. 
mond and Whitby, in /oc.; Waterland, 

92 


” ae . ἡ ν ὧν — 


180 (Arr. XXVIIL 


of the Lord,” ver. 27. He then exhorts to self-examination, ver. 
28, and adds, ver. 29: ‘* For he that eateth and drinketh unwor- 
thily, eateth and drinketh to himself condemnation, not setting 
apart as holy the Body of the Lord” (κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει, 
μὴ διακρίνων τὸ Σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου). The Lord’s own words of 
institution pointed to this Sacrament as the means of participating 
in His Body and Blood; he therefore who received that Sacra- 
ment, not as a thing most sacred and venerable, but as part or 
adjunct of a common feast, was guilty of great and heinous impiety, 
because he did not set apart as a holy thing the Body of the 
Lord. This is the plain meaning of the passage, according to the 
obvious rendering of the original ; and it certainly teaches a lesson 
of deep reverence, and speaks home plainly to our faith. It seems 
an unanswerable argument against those who esteem the Eucharist 
as “a bare sign of a thing absent.” We, of the Church of England, 
who believe Christ really present in His Sacraments, and spiritually 
there feeding our souls, as much as those who look for a natural 
reception of Him, can feel the truth and awfulness of such apostolic 
warnings. We do not differ with the believers in transubstantia- 
tion, so far as their statement goes, that in the Eucharist there is 
a real presence of the Lord. And therefore we feel, as they do, 
that to receive unworthily is to do dishonour to the Body of Christ. 
Our difference with them is not concerning the truth of Christ’s 
presence, which the Apostle’s words seem forcibly to teach us; but 
we differ with them only concerning the mode. That they define 
carnally, whilst we believe it mystically. And herein we can 
scarcely use words more apposite than the words used long ago 
by Calvin: “If any ask me concerning the mode, I am not 
ashamed to confess the mystery to be more sublime than my intel- 
lect can grasp, or than words can tell; and, that I may speak more 
openly, I essay rather than understand. Therefore here I embrace 
without controversy the truth of God, in which I may safely 
acquiesce. He pronounces His Flesh the food of my soul, His 
Blood the drink. I offer my soul to be fed with such aliments. 
In His sacred Feast He bids me, under symbols of bread and wine, 
pos. 86 Pindar, Olynph x. δ .δδὲ Hep 
δὲ πάξαις ἄλτιν μὲν dy’ ἐν καϑαρῷ διακρίνει. 
The plain meaning therefore of St. Paul 


OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


1 διακρίνων, discernens, _ separating, 
setting apart as holy. So the Syriac, 


nicl, To discern, as we in modern 


English use that word, is only a second- 
ary and improper sense of ρίνειν, as 
it is also of discernere. The natural 
meaning is fo separate, to make a distinction 
of one thing from another. It is used in 
classical as well as in Hellenistic Greek, 


is, that people who mixed up the Eucha- 
rist with a profane feast, treated the 
Lord’s Body, which is given us there, as 
no better than a common thing, not as 
sacted and holy. : 


Sic. IL] OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 731 


to take His Body and Blood, to eat and to drink. I doubt not 
but that He really offers, and that I receive. All I reject is what 
is in itself absurd, unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, or 
alien from the verity of His nature as man.” + So Calvin; and so 
our own Hooker: ‘ What these elements are in themselves it 
skilleth not. It isenough that wnto me that take them they are the 
Body and Blood of Christ. His promise in witness hereof sufficeth. 
His word He knoweth which way to accomplish. Why should 
any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communicant ; but, Ὁ 
my God, Thou art true: O my soul, thou art happy ?”? It is in 
this way that the Scriptures have left it: so the devout soul has 
ever embraced it: and so we may safely and thankfully receive 
it, — not speculate curiously, nor expound carnally ; but believe 
and live. 


1 [nstitut. rv. xvii. 82. ΣῈ. P.Bk. v. ch. txvi. 12. 


Norte. 


I wave confined myself in this Article almost wholly to the presence in the Eu- 
charist, and the mode of receiving Christ's Body and Blood. The latter part of the 
Article has thereby been deprived of its due attention. It is, however, but a sim- 
ple corollary. Elevating the host resulted from a belief in transubstantiation. If 
that doctrine be rejected, we shall not believe the wafer to have been really trans- 
formed into Christ’s Body, and so shall not worship it, nor elevate it for worship. 
There is evidently no Scriptural authority for the elevation of the Host, the com- 
mand being, ‘‘ Take, eat.” The Roman ritualists themselves admit, that there is 
no trace of its existence before the 11th or 12th centuries ; and no certain documents 
refer to it till about a. p. 1200. See Palmer, Onthe Church, Vol. 1. part 1. ch. x1 
p. 811, 


{Two particulars of the Tridentine doctrine of Trausubstantiation are especially to 
be noted for their contrast to the Anglican doctrine of the real Spiritual Presence 
in the Eucharist. 

(1.) The annihilation of the elements. With regard to which, remember : — 

(a.) The absence of Scriptural proof. 

(b.) The patristic teaching that the elements remain in their original substance; es- 
pecially the use by Gelasius and others of the accepted Eucharistic doctrine as an 
argument against the Eutychians. See Pearson On the Creed, p. 247, and note. 

(c.) That if this view is correct, it is a solitary instance of a miracle which contra- 
dicts the senses, instead of appealing to them. 

(2.) The identification of the consecrated elements not with the Body and Blood of 
Christ, but with His entire Personality by affirming the presence in them of His 
Human Soul. With regard to which, remember: — 

(a.) The absence of Scriptural proof. The language is, “ this is my Body,” “ this 
is my Blood,” not ‘this is I myself;”’ the sole exception being St. John vi. 57: “ He 
that eateth me, even he shall live by me,” where the manner of feeding upon Christ 
iad been explained in the preceding verse to be the eating of His flesh and drinking 
of His Blood. 

(b.) The language of the Fathers is similar. 

(c.) So also is the statement of the Orthodox Eastern Church, Guettée, Exp. de 
la Doctrine, p. 135. 

On the subject of the Eucharistic Presence, see the invaluable Intreduction to Part 
II. of the Principles of Divine Service by Archdeacon Freeman. — H. A. Y.— J. W.] 


ARTICLE XXIX. 


—_—~— 


Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of 
Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper. 


Tar Wicked, and such as be void of 
a lively faith, although they do carnally 
and visibly press with their teeth (as St. 
Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the 
Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no 
wise are they partakers of Christ: but 
rather, to their condemnation, do eat and 
drink the sign or Sacrament of so great 
a thing. 


De manducatione Corporis Christi, et impi 
illud non manducare. ne 


ΙΜΡΙΙ, et fide -viva destituti, licet 
carnaliter et visibiliter (ut Augustinus 
loquitur) corporis et sanguinis Christi 
Sacramentum dentibus premant, nullo 
tamen modo Christi participes efficiun- 
tur. 

Sed potius tante rei Sacramentum, seu 
symbolum, ad judicium sibi manducant 
et bibunt. 





Sxcrion I.— HISTORY. 


F the last Article be true, this most probably follows on it. 
There are but two possible views of the question. Either the 
wicked and unbelieving do not eat Christ’s Body and Blood, but 
only their sacred symbols ; or they eat the Body and Blood, but to 
condemnation, not to salvation. The former alternative has gen- 
erally been held, in latter times, by the advocates of a spiritual 
feeding ; the latter, by the believers in transubstantiation, and, I 
suppose, by most believers in consubstantiation. The fathers’ teach- 
ing is naturally obscure on this point. They so constantly called 
the symbols by the name of that they symbolized, that they would 
commonly speak of eating the Body of Christ, when they meant 
only the consecrated bread, the Sacrament of His Body. Yet 
plain passages occur, which are strongly in favour of the view 
taken by our reformers in this Article. 

Origen speaks concerning * the Word who was made flesh, the 
true food, which no wicked man can eat. For, if it were possible 
that one continuing in wickedness should eat Him who was made 
Hlesh, the Word, the living bread; in vain would it have been 
written, whoso eateth this bread shall live forever.” Cyprian tells 


To τοῦ ἐσϑίειν τὸν γενόμενον σάρκα Λόγον ὄντα, καὶ 
Λόγου, ὃς γέγονε καὶ ἀληϑινὴ βρῶσις, ἄρτον (ene, οὐκ ἂν ἐγέγραπτο, ὅτι πᾶς ὁ 
ἣν τινα ὁ φάγων πάντως ζήσεται εἷς τὸν φάγων τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον σεται εἰς τὲν 
ὥνα, οὐδενὸς δυναμένου φαύλου ἐσϑίειν αἰῶνα. Origen. In Matt. xv. Comment. 
αὐτήν " εἰ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἣν ἔτι φαῦλον μένοντα 


1 Πολλὰ δ᾽ ἂν περὶ αὐτοῦ λέ 
ope 


Sec. I.] THE USE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


188 


a story of the Eucharistic bread becoming a cinder in the hands 
of one who had lapsed, as a proof that Christ could not be received 
by the unworthy communicant.! 80 St. Hilary, “‘ The bread that 
came down from Heaven, is not taken but by him who hath the 
Lord, and is a member of Christ.”? St. Augustine is quoted in 
the very words of the Article. Some part of the passage is thought 
by the Benedictine editors to have been interpolated ; which I will 
put between brackets. What remains, however, is fully sufficient 
to serve the purpose for which it is adduced. ‘‘ By this, he who 
abides not in Christ, nor Christ in him, without doubt eats not 
[spiritually] His Flesh, nor drinks His Blood; [though he car- 
nally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of His Body 
and Blood] ; but rather he eats and drinks, to his condemnation, 
the Sacrament of so great thing.” ® So elsewhere, he clearly ἡ 
distinguishes between sacramental eating and real eating: ‘* Whoso 
eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him. 
Here our Lord shows what it is, not only sacramentally, but really, 
to eat Christ’s Body and drink His Blood ; even to dwell in Christ 
and Christ in him. And He said this, as much as to say, Whoso- 
ever does not abide in Me and I in him, let him not say, nor think 
that he eats My Body or drinks My Blood.’* So Jerome also 
says, that ‘lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God eat not 
the Flesh, nor drink the Blood of Jesus.’ ® 

It has been argued indeed, that the prayer in the ancient Litur- 
gies, for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the elements, implied 
of necessity a belief that after that descent the elements of them- 
selves become so truly the Body and Blood of Christ, that the com- 


1 “Et quidem alius, quia et ipse mac- 
ulatus sacrificio a sacerdote celebrato 
partem cum ceteris ausus est latenter 
accipere, sanctum Domini corpus edere 
et contrectare non potuit : cinerem ferre 
se, apertis manibus invenit. Documento 
unius ostenditur, Dominum recedere cum 
negatur, nec immerentibus ad salutem 
prodesse quod sumitur, quando gratia 
salutaris in cinerem, sanctitate fugiente, 
mutatur.” — Cyprian. De Lapsis, p. 133, 
Fell. 

2 «Panis qui descendit de cceelo, non 
nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet, 
et Christi membrum est.’”’— Hilar. De 
Trinit. Lib. ὙΠ. 

3 “Ac per hoc qui non manet in 
Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, 
procul dubio nec manducat [spiritualiter | 
carnem Ejus, nec bibit Ejus sanguinem 
[licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat den- 
tibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis 
Christi:] sed magis tante rei sacramen- 


tum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit.” 
-α In Joan. Tract. 26, Tom. 111. pars Il. p. 


* “Denique Ipse dicens Qui manducat 
Carnem meam, et bibit Sanguinem meum, 
in Me manet, et Ego in eo; ostendit quid 
sit non sacramento tenus, sed re vera 
Corpus Christi manducare, et Ejus san- 
guinem bibere: hoc est enim in Christo 
manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. 
Sic enim hoc dixit, tanquam diceret, Qui 
non in me manet, et in quo Ego non 
maneo, non se dicat aut existimet mandu- 
care Corpus meum aut bibere sanguinem 
meum.” — De Civitate Dei, Lib. xx. c. 
25, Tom. vir. p. 646. 

5 « Omnes voluptatis magis amatores, 
quam amatores Dei... . nec come- 
dunt carnem Jesu, neque bibunt sangui- 
nem Ejus; de quo Ipse loquitur: Qu 
comedit carnem meam, et bibit sanyguinem 
meum, habet vitam ceternam.” — Hieronym 
In Isai. c. 66, ver. 17. Tom. 111. p. 506. 


184 OF THE EATING OF THE WICKED [Arr. XXIX. 
municants, whether worthily or unworthily receiving, must neces- 
sarily partake of the Body and Blood. This, if it means anything 
of the kind, means the full doctrine of transubstantiation. But no 
such conclusion can be deduced from the fact of the invocation. 
For first, the like invocation of the Spirit was made in baptism ; 
and of this we hear much earlier than of the invocation in the Eu- 
charist.1 Now, though the fathers believed, as the English reform- 
ers did, that the Holy Ghost ‘ would sanctify the water to the 
mystical washing away of sin;”? yet they neither believed in a 
change of the substance of the water, nor in an:admixture of the 
Holy Spirit with the water;* nor that an unworthy recipient ob- 
tained the blessing of the Spirit’s sanctification. We must suppose 
the same principle to apply to the sanctification of the symbols in 
‘ the Eucharist. As the minister was to consecrate, so the fathers 
looked for the Spirit to bless the elements to a sacred use. ‘ We 
beseech the merciful God,” says St. Cyril, ‘to send the Holy 
Ghost upon the elements; that He may make the bread Christ’s 
Body and the wine His Blood. For, undoubtedly, whatever the 
Holy Ghost touches, that is sanctified and changed.” ¢ 

But, though the Holy Spirit sanctifies and changes, it follows not 
that the change is a change of substance. “The sanctification of the 
elements is to a sacred use and office,——to a new relation, not to 
a new nature. Accordingly, St. Cyril speaks afterwards of the 
illapse of the Holy Spirit, as making the elements holy, and at the 
same time making the communicant holy. ‘ Holy also are ye, 
being now endowed with the Spirit.”® So, some of the ancient 
Liturgies have a prayer for the descent on the communicants first, 
and then on the elements. And so, in several Liturgies, and 
especially in the Gregorian Sacramentary,’ from thence derived 
to the canon of the mass, the words ‘to ws,” are inserted; 
thereby restricting the blessing upon the elements to their effects 
on the recipient. Nay! that transubstantiation could not haye 
been intended, has been admitted by many Romanist divines ; inas- 


1 Tertull. De Baptismo, c. 4. 

2 Office of Public Baptism. 

3 μιγνύντων τὰ ἄμικτα, says Basil, of 
those who spoke of the mixture of the 
Spirit and water. Basil, De Sp. S. Tom. 


111, p. 80, See Waterland, On the Eucha- 
rist, ch. x. 
* Cyril Hierosol. Catech. Mystag. v. 


c. 7. This is the oldest certain mention 
of the custom; i, 6. in the middle of the 
fourth century. The next oldest form is 
in the A ical Constitutions, Lib. vit. 
9.12: “ We beseech Thee, Ὁ God, to send 
Thy Holy Spirit on this Sacrifice... . 


that He may make this bread to become 
the Body of Thy Christ, and this cup to 
become the Blood of Thy Christ.” — See 
Waterland, as above. 

δ Ibid, ο. 19. 

6 “Super nos et super hec dona,” 
(See the Liturgies in Fabricius and 
Renaudotius, cited by Waterland, as 
above.) ἢ 

7“ Quam oblationem Tu, Deus, in om- 
nibus quesumus benedictam facere dig- 
neris, ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat,” ἂν 
— Cited by Waterland. 


Sec. 111] IN THE USE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. 735 


much as, in the Greek Liturgies, the invocation of the Spirit fol- 
lowed the words of institution. Now, the Latin divines fix the 
consecration to the words of institution. Hence, if there be any 
truth in transubstantiation, the change must, according to them, 
have taken place before the invocation, and could not therefore be 
the effect of the invocation.! In short, ‘‘ all circumstances show, 
that the true and ancient intent of that part of the service was not 
to implore any physical change in the elements, no, nor so much as 
a physical connection of the Spirit with the elements, but a moral 
change only in the elements, as to relation and uses, and a gracious 
presence of the Holy Spirit upon the communicants.” ? 

But, when a belief arose in the opus operatum, and in the al:so- 
lute change of substance in the elements, then, naturally, it was 
held, that not only the faithful, but even the unbelieving, must 
receive the very Body and Blood of Christ, though of course the 
latter, only to condemn them. And then too, the fathers (who 
spoke freely of the elements under the name of that they signified, 
and, no doubt, believed in a sanctification of them to holy purposes) 
were cited as holding the same language, and as witnesses to the 
same doctrine. 

It seems by no means necessary that the like result should fol- 
low from the doctrine of consubstantiation. Indeed Luther greatly. 
abhorred the opus operatum. Still, I suppose, the Lutherans 
rather inclined to the belief that the wicked eat the Body of Christ, 
yet impiously, and to their ruin. And so this Article was, for a 
time, expunged by Queen Elizabeth and her Council ;° probably 
as not agreeable to those members of the Church who were of 
Lutheran sentiments. All other branches of the Reformation seem 
to have agreed that, as the presence of Christ. was not in the ele- 
ments, but only vouchsafed with the elements ‘ to the faithful,” so 
His presence would be withheld from those who were unfaithful 
and impenitent. 





ΒΈΟΤΙΟΝ Il.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


* one sense of the words, then, we may admit that every com- 

municant eats Christ’s Body and drinks His Blood; because 

he eats the symbol which is called His Body (corpus, ἢ. ὁ. figura’ 
1 Waterland, as above, p.407. (Cam- 2 Ibid, 


bridge, 1787.) The subject is very full 3 See above, Introduction, p. 15 
discussed in this place by Dr. Waterland. 


736 OF THE EATING OF THE WICKED [Arr. XXIX. 


corporis), and drinks the symbol which is called His Blood. But 
all that has been said in former Articles to disprove the doctrine 
of the opus operatum, applies here. The actual reception of Christ’s 
Body and Blood is the reception, not of the outward sign, but of 
the inward grace. Now, the inward grace of the Sacraments be- 
longs only to the faithful, not to the impenitent and unbelieving. 
Of course, if we admit a physical change in the elements, we must 
believe Christ’s Body to be eaten, not only by the wicked, but, as 
has been often argued, by mice or dogs, or any other animal, that 
may accidentally devour a portion of the consecrated bread. Hence 
the contrary position to the statement of this Article follows, of 
necessity, on the doctrine of transubstantiation. But then, the op- 
posite doctrine of an efficacious, spiritual presence, and that rather 
in the recipient than in the element, seems inevitably to issue in 
the doctrine here propounded. 

As for the direct statements of the new Testament, we must lay 
aside the words of institution ; which will not aid us, until we have 
determined whether they imply a spiritual or a carnal presence ; 
and confine our attention to the eleventh chapter of 1 Cor. and to 
the sixth chapter of St. John. In the former we are told, that 
“whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord, 
unworthily, is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (ver. 
27); and that “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
and drinketh condemnation to himself, not setting apart as holy 
the Lord’s Body” (ver. 29). Perhaps the first view of this pas- 
sage rather appears to favour the doctrine of the opus operatum. 
The unworthy communicant is “ guilty of the Body and Blood of 
the Lord,” which he pollutes; and he eats and drinks condemna- 
tion because he does not set apart and treat with reverence the 
Lord’s Body. At least, candour may oblige us to admit that there 
is nothing in St. Paul’s words thus cited, which will not square 
with the hypothesis that every recipient equally eats the Flesh and 
drinks the Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, we are justi- 
fied in contending that there is nothing inconsistent with our own 
belief, that the wicked do not eat Christ. In the former case, we 
can see how great the profanation would be ; but in the latter, it is 
still very fearful. . The feast provided for the faithful is doubtless a 
spiritual feast on the Lord’s Body and Blood ; hence, the profane 
receiver is unquestionably “guilty concerning Christ’s Body and 
Blood” (ἔνοχος τοῦ σώματος, x. τ. A). And again, as the bread and 
wine are the means of communicating to us the Body and Blood 
of Christ; so he, who treats the Eucharist as part of a mere com- 


Sze. Π.1] IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 181 


mon feast, (which the Corinthians did,) does clearly refuse to treat 
with reverence, and to set apart as holy the Body of the Lord. 

But if there be any ambiguity in the words of St. Paul, there 
can be none in the words of our Lord. He plainly tells us, “ He 
that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and 
I in him” (John vi. 56). ‘‘ He that eateth Me, even he shall live 
by Me” (ver. 57). ‘* He that eateth of this bread shall live for- 
ever” (ver. 58). ‘* Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh My 
Blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day ” 
(ver. 54). Now all this is plain, that the real feeding on Christ is 
to salvation, not to condemnation. All are agreed, that the wicked 
do not profit, but rather suffer loss by eating in the Eucharist. But 
then, if they do not profit, we inevitably infer from the words cf 
our Lord, that they have not eaten His Flesh nor drunk His Blood ; 
for those who do so, “live by Him,” — “live forever,” — “ have 
eternal life,’ — have Him dwelling in them, —“ have eternal life, 
and are raised up at the last day.” 

The only escape from the inference seems to be in an assertion, 
that John vi. does not refer to Eucharistic feeding, but to spiritual _ 
feeding apart from the Eucharist. But whatever conclusion we 
may come to on that head, the statement seems clear and general, 
“δ that eateth Me shall live by Me” (ver. 57). Now, granting 
that this eating of Christ may be apart from the Eucharist, yet is 
it not quite clear that, howsoever it be, it is life-giving? The prop- 
osition is perfectly universal. Though, therefore, we may admit 
that it may be applicable to a mere spiritual feeding by faith, yet 
we must contend that, if in the Eucharist it be veal, then it must 
bring life with it. ‘“ He that eateth shall live.” The only ques- 
tion is therefore — who eateth? Whosoever eateth, if the eating 
be real eating, eateth life. If, therefore, in the Eucharist a man 
really feeds on Christ, he lives by Him. Hence, those who eat 
and drink unworthily, cannot really feed on the Lord’s Body; 
though, ‘to their condemnation, they do eat and drink the Sacra- 
ment of so great a thing.’ And this seems, at the same time, 
to prove the proposition of our Article, and to disprove the whole 
theory of transubstantiation, and of the natural presence. 


ARTICLE XXX. 


—e— 


Of both Kinds. 


Tue Cup of the Lord is not to be de- 
nied to the Lay-people: for both the 
oe of the Lord’s Sacrament, by 

hrist’s ordinance and commandment, 
ought to be ministered to all Christian 


De utraque Specie. 


Cau1x Domini laicis non est denegan- 
dus, utraque enim pars Dominici Sacra- 
menti ex Christi institutione et preecepto, 
omen Christianis ex equo administrari 

ebet. 


men alike. 





Section I. — HISTORY. 


| ie is not so much as pretended by the more candid Roman Cath- 
olics, that there is patristic authority for withdrawing the cup 
from the laity. 

In the earliest account we have of the ministration of the Eucha- 
rist, that of Justin Martyr, we read that ‘* the deacons gave to every 
one that was present to partake of the bread, over which thanks 
had been offered, and of wine mixed with water, and that they 
carried them also to those not present.” ! This is fully confirmed 
by St. Cyprian, who speaks of the deacons as “ offering the cup to 
those who were present.” ? St. Chrysostom especially notices, that 
there was no distinction between priests and laymen in this respect: 
‘Whereas under the old Covenant the priests ate some things, and 
the laymen others; and it was not lawful for the people to partake 
of those things, of which the priest partook ; it is not so now, but 
one Body is placed before all, and one cup.”’ ὃ 

These and similar expressions of the fathers are fully borne out 
by the language of the ancient liturgies ; from which we infer, not 
only that both elements were administered alike to clergy and laity, 
but that they were ministered separately. The fear of spilling the 


1 Ebxaptorhoavrog δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος καὶ 
ἐπευφημήσαντος πώντος τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ Kadoi- 
μενοι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν διάκονοι διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν 

ν μεταλαβεῖν τοῦ εὐχαριστηϑέντος 
ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς οὐ 
νην ἀποφέρουσι. --- Justin. Apol. τ. p. 


" “Ubi solennibus adimpletis calicem 


diaconus offerre Td. cospit.” — 
Cyp. De Laps παι μάρς 

ὃ Οὐ καϑάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς παλαῖας τὰ μὲν ὁ 
ἱερεὺς jade, τὰ δὲ ὁ ἀρχόμενος * καὶ ϑέμις 
οὐκ ἣν τῷ λαῷ μετέχειν ὧν μετεῖχεν ὁ ἱερεὺς, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ νῦν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν ἐν σῶμα προκεῖται 
καὶ ἕν pais — Chrysost. Homil. x1v. 
in 1 Cor 


Sec. 1.1 OF BOTH KINDS. 739 


consecrated wine (of right to be regarded reverently, but in the 
course of time regarded superstitiously) led to the administering 
the two elements together, by dipping the consecrated bread into 
the cup; which custom still continues in the Eastern Churches. 
But the doctrine of transubstantiation naturally led to the belief 
that, inasmuch as the elements were wholly changed into the 
substance of Christ, therefore whole Christ, Body and Blood, 
was contained in either element; and hence that, if only one 
element was received, yet Christ was fully received under that 
one element. 

It was not at first without opposition, both from councils and 
from eminent divines, that the custom which this belief gave rise 
to, gradually gained ground. Thus the xxvuith canon of the 
Council of Clermont (a. Ὁ. 1095) decrees, that all, who shall 
communicate at the altar, shall receive the Body and Blood of 
Jesus Christ under both kinds, if there be no provision to the 
contrary.! And in the next century, Geoffrey, Abbot of Ven- 
dome, censures the custom of a certain monastery, where both 
species were not administered separately, but the bread was steeped 
in the wine.” 

In the time of the schoolmen, however, the question was pretty 
much discussed, whether it was lawful to receive in one kind only. 
They were by no means agreed that either element could be 
dispensed with. But the temptation to withhold the cup was great. 
Thereby the danger was avoided of spilling on the ground the 
sacred Blood of Christ. Thereby too, it was left in the power of 
the priesthood to dispense only so much as they chose, even of the 
ordinance of Christ.’ 

There was scarcely any corruption of Popery so much com- 
plained of by Wickliffe, Huss, and other early reformers, as this 
withholding from the faithful what they cherished, as a portion 
of their birthright. It was one of the abuses which, it was fondly 


1 See Dupin, Cent. x1. Vol. 1x. p. 74. 

2 Dupin, Cent. x1z. Vol. x. p. 188. 

8 It is a remarkable acknowledgment 
of Cardinal Bona, that “ always, every- 
where, from the very first foundation of 
the Church to the 12th century, the 
faithful always communicated under the 
species both of bread and wine.” 

“Certum est omnes passim clericos et 
\aicos, viros et mulieres sub utraque 
specie sacra mysteria antiquitus sump- 
sisse, cum solemni eorum celebrationi 
aderant, et offerebant et de oblatis par- 
ticipabant. Extra sacrificium vero, et 
extra ecclesiam semper et ubique sub 


.una specie in usu fuit. Prime parti asser- 


tionis consentiunt omnes, tam Catholici 
quam sectarii ; nec eam negare potest, qui 
vel levissima rerum KEcclesiasticarum 
imbutus sit. Semper enim et ubique, ab 
ecclesie primordiis usque ad seculum 
duodecimum, sub specie panis et vini 
communicarunt fideles : coepitque paula- 
tim ejus seculi initio usus calicis obsoles- 
cere, plerisque episcopis eum -populo 
interdicentibus ob periculum irreverentie 
et effusionis.”” — Bona, Rev. Liturg. Lib. 
11. c. 18, n. 1, quoted by Bingham, #. A 
RAV. 1; 


740 ΟΕ BOTH KINDS. (Arr. XXX. 


hoped, the Council of Constance (a.D. 1415) would reform and 
eradicate. But so far from reforming it, that famous Council 
decreed that, as the reception of one element was sufficient for 
the receiving wholly both the Body and Blood of Christ, so the 
Eucharist should be received by the laity in one kind only.? 

This decree led to serious results in Germany. The sects of 
the Calixtines and Taborites sprang up in opposition to it; the 
former protesting against the depriving them of an inalienable 
right and privilege, the latter not satisfied with protesting, but 
having recourse even to arms and violence.? 

It is only further necessary to add, that, whilst every reformed 
Church in Christendom restored to the laity the cup in the 
Eucharist, the Council of Trent, following the Council of Con- 
stance, decreed anathemas against all who held, that both kinds 
were necessary to all the faithful — against all who denied that the 
Catholic Church had been led by just causes to order the laity and 
the non-ministering clergy to communicate under the species of 
bread alone — and against all who denied that whole Christ was 
received according to His own institution under one kind.® 





ΘΈΟΤΙΟΝ II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


$ Does only passages in Scripture which can be appealed to, are 
those which relate to the institution of the Eucharist. In all 
of these there appears no difference between the bread and the 
cup, save only this: that in St. Matthew (xxvi. 27) our Lord is 
specially related to have used, concerning the latter, the words 
* Drink ye all of it,” and in St. Mark (xiv. 23) it is specially 
recorded, that “they all drank of it; ’’ whereas, concerning the 
bread, it is only said, “ Take, eat.” If therefore we can at all infer 
that one should be of more universal extent and applicability than 
the other, our inference should surely be rather in favour of the 
cup, than in favour of the other element. 

But I believe it is never argued that Scripture gives au- 
thority for the withdrawing of the cup. The mode of argument 
is this. It is true, all the Apostles received both elements. But 


* Concil. Constant. Sess. xi11. See 3 Mosheim, Cent. xv. ρὲ. τσ. οἱ, m1. δ 5,6. 
also Mosheim, Cent. xv. ch. τι. § 8. 8 Sess. xx1. Can. 1. 1. 111. 


Suc. IL] ‘OF BOTH KINDS. 741 


then all were priests. This therefore is not sufficient ground for 
assuming that the laity are of necessity to receive both elements. 
It is granted, that it is not a matter de fide and of absolute 
obligation to withdraw the cup from laymen, but merely a Church- 
ordinance, for greater decency and edification. It is indeed neces- 
sary to consecrate both bread and wine, in order to follow our 
Lord’s example; and, for the same reason, necessary that some 
one should receive them both. Hence the officiating priest 
always communicates in both kinds. But it is no injury to the 
rest, that they receive but in one kind, for whole Christ (Body 
and Blood and Spirit and Godhead) is received perfectly under 
either species; and therefore he who receives but one, has no 
need to receive more. It is a similar case to that when our Lord 
said to St. Peter, “" He that is washed needeth not save to wash his 
feet, but is clean every whit” (John xiii. 10). 

Now this is surely very unsafe reasoning. It is true, the 
Apostles were all ministers of Christ. But if this be ground for 
withdrawing the cup, it might be as well pleaded for withdrawing 
the Sacrament altogether from the laity. There were at that 
memorable Passover none present but our Lord and His Apostles. 
But surely the example was intended for all the Church. Besides 
which, the Church of Rome withholds the cup, not only from the 
laity, but even from all the clergy, except the consecrating priest; 
which clearly is inconsistent with the original institution, wherein 
our Lord did not drink of it Himself alone, but said, ‘* Drink ye 
all of it,” and “ they all drank.” 

If we take St. Paul’s statements and reasonings in 1 Cor. x. 
xi., we shall find much ground to conclude that not only presby- 
ters, but the people too, partook of the two elements. His ad- 
dresses, warnings, exhortations in those two chapters are evidently 
general. We should almost infer, that they were rather to the 
laity, than to the clergy. It is more likely that laymen, than that 
clergymen, should have been guilty of partaking of idol feasts, and 
of neglecting to hallow the feast of the Eucharist. Now one 
argument. by which he tries to persuade the Corinthian Christians 
not to eat what had been offered to idols is, “" Ye cannot drink the 
cup of the Lord and the cup of devils ” (1 Cor. x. 21). This would 
be no great argument to laymen, unless they were permitted to 
drink “‘ the cup of the Lord.” And in the following chapter he 
presses on them the duty of self-examination before communion, 
and of reverently partaking of that holy Sacrament, in terms which 
show clearly that all those whom he addresses, 7. 6, both clergy and 


142 OF BOTH KINDS. (Arr: XXX. 


laity, were wont to receive both the bread and the cup: “ As often 
as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show. the Lord’s 
death till he come; wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and 
drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body 
and Blood of the Lord. But let a man (ὦ. e. any man, whosoever 
receives the Sacrament) examine himself, and so let. him eat of 
that bread and drink of that cup” (1 Cor. xi. 2T-29). 

With such strong evidence, that the cup was not only insti- 
tuted by our blessed Lord, but also received by all His people, it 
is surely very hazardous to conclude from certain inductions of 
reason, that one half of His ordinance may be withheld from the 
great body of His Church. On what do we rest, as an assurance 
that we shall receive blessing in the use of Sacraments, but on our 
knowledge that we are acting in obedience to our Lord’s com- 
mands, doing as He has ordained that we should do, and therefore 
have a right to expect that He will give that grace which He has 
promised to give in the due administering of his ordinances ? 
But if we, resting on our own fallible judgments, curtail His 
ordinances, and administer but half of what He has enjoined, 
what right have we to expect a blessing to rest upon us? A 
Sacrament is no Sacrament without these three requisites: the 
minister, the ordained elements, and the words of consecration. We 
should not think baptism valid, if we substituted sand for water ; 
nor the Eucharist valid, if we substituted water for wine, or meat 
for bread ; although the rite which of old answered to the Eucha- 
rist, was celebrated with the flesh of lamb. It leaves therefore a 
very serious question, whether the Sacrament is a valid Sacrament 
when there is only ministered one half of what Christ ordained, 
of what the Apostolic Christians received, and of what the 
Catholic Church administered for very many centuries after the 
Apostles. 

It is quite clear that only one thing can give even a colour of 
pretence for this mutilation of the ordinance : namely, the hypothesis 
that the elements are transubstantiated, each element into the 
entire substance of the Saviour. If this hypothesis fail, the alter- 
native remains, that the Sacrament is not as Christ ordained it, 
and that (unless He, of His mercy, supplies the deficiency) it is 
not ‘such as to warrant us in the assurance that it is more than a 
piece of will-worship and human invention. We do not indeed 
wish to deny that those who, in faith and ignorance, receive a 
tnutilated Sacrament, may receive the full blessing. We trust 
that such is the case, because we believe our gracious Lord will 


Sec. Π.] OF BOTH KINDS. 743 


give the food of everlasting life, His own blessed Body and Blood, 
even through imperfect means (or, it may be, without means at all) 
to those who come to Him in faith and penitence, not with per- 
verse neglect, but in unwilling ignorance. But this does not 
prevent us from saying, that the Eucharist without the cup is not 
the Eucharist ordained of Christ. 


[It is worthy of remark that the Councils of Constance (Sess. x111.) and Trent 
(Sess. xxr. chaps. 1. 111.) both admit, that our Lord instituted and administered in 
both kinds. 

Constance also admits that the Primitive Church exhibited in both kinds; while 
Trent (Sess. xx1. chap. 11.) says, that “the use of both species has, from the begin- 
ning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent.” 

Constance appears to justify its action on the ground that as our Lord instituted 
after supper, and it was afterwards the rule to receive fasting, so the Church may also 
change Christ’s actual institution, and — quoad recipientem — the matter of the Sacra- 
ment. Surely, to state such reasoning is to answer it, 

See Sir Humphrey Lynde’s Via Tuta, Sec. 1x. Par. 6.—J. W.] 


ARTICLE XXXL 


«-----ὕ. 


Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon 
the Cross. 


Tue Offering of Christ once made is 
that perfect redemption, propitiation, 
and satisfaction, for all the sins of the 
whole world, both original and actual ; 
and there is none other satisfaction for 
sin, but that alone. Wherefore the 
sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was 
commonly said, that the Priest did offer 
Christ for the quick and the dead, to 
have remission of pain or guilt, were 
Seen fables, and dangerous de- 
ceits. 


De unica Christi oblatione in cruce 
perfecta. 


Oxsxatio Christi semel facta, perfecta 
est redemptio, propitiatio et satisfactio 
pro omnibus peccatis totius mundi, tam 
originalibus quam actualibus; neque 
preter illam unicam est ulla alia pro 
catis expiatio : unde missarum πὲ, οὐ τα 
quibus vulgo dicebatur, sacerdotem οἵ- 
ferre Christum in remissionem pene, 
aut culpe, pro vivis et defunctis, blas- 
phema figmenta sunt, et perniciose im- 
posture. 





Section I.— HISTORY. 


| be cannot be doubted that, from the very first, the fathers spoke 
of the Eucharist under the name of an offering or sacrifice. 


Clement of Rome writes of the bishops of the Church, as “ unblam- 
ably and holily offering the gifts ;” 1 where he is evidently allud- 
ing to the Eucharist. The gifts were the bread and wine, and the 
other offerings presented on the table of the Lord. The verb made 
use of is προσφέρειν ; so that Clement calls the Eucharist by the 
name προσφορὰ, offering. Justin Martyr not only calls it προσφορὰ, 
offering, but moreover θυσία, sacrifice. He quotes Malachi (i. 10, 
11) as prophesying, “" Of the sacrifices to be offered by us Gentiles 
in every place, 7. 6. the bread of the Eucharist, and the cup of the 
Eucharist.” Irenzeus cites the same prophecy, and applies it to 
the same Sacrament; saying that the prophet foretold “ the new 
oblation of the new Testament, which the Church, receiving from 
the Apostles, offers throughout the world to God.”* Tertullian 


1 ἀμέμπτως καὶ ὁσίως προσενέγκοντας τὰ 
δῶρα. --- Clem. 1 Ad Corinth. c. 44. 

Ὁ Περὶ τῶν ἐν πάντι τόπῳ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν 
ἐϑνῶν προσφερομένων αὐτῷ ϑυσιῶν, τουτέστι 
τοῦ ἀρτοῦ τῆς Εὐχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου 
ὁμοίως τῆς Εὐχαριστίας, προλέγει τότε εἰπῶν, 
καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ δοξάζειν ἡμᾶς. ---- Dial. 

260 ; cf. pp. 844, B46. 


“ad Noul Testumess novam docuit ob- 


lationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis ac- 
cipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo.” 
— Lib. rv. c. 82, p. 828, Grabe. 

So quoting Matt. v. 23, 24: “Cum 
igitur offers munus tuum ad altare,” &c., 
he says, ‘ Offerre igitur rtet Deo 
primitias ejus creature.” — Lib. rv. c. 84, 
p. 825. 


Szc. I.] OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST. 745 


constantly speaks of oblations and sacrifices, using the word offer 
(offerre),! and so probably oblation® of the Eucharist ; though the 
word sacrifice is applied by him rather to the sacrifice of prayer or 
praise.® 

These are all authorities of the first two centuries ; all wit- 
nesses within little more than a century from the Apostles. The 
question which occurs concerning them is, in what sense do they 
speak of offering and sacrifice ? 

Justin Martyr says: ‘¢ The offering of fine flour, for those who 
were cleansed of leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, 
which the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to offer, in remem- 
brance of His suffering.’”’* Clemens Romanus speaks of “ offering 
the gifts.” Justin and Irenzus both refer to the “ pure offering ” 
of Malachi, which, though Justin after the LXX. translates it by 
θυσία, sacrifice, is in the Hebrew mays, mincha, %. e. an oblation. 
Now the mincha was an offering of meal. or flour baked, or of 
parched corn. It is a “" meat-offering,” according to the English 
version ; but, as Joseph Mede observes, we might more correctly 
call it a bread-offering.® Again, Tertullian speaks of the Christian 
sacrifice as a sacrifice of “pure prayer; as Justin Martyr also 
had done before him.* 

We have very similar witness from Clement of Alexandria and 
Origen. The former calls the sacrifice of the Church, ‘‘ Speech 
exhaled from holy souls, whilst the whole understanding is laid 
open before God together with the sacrifice.’* And the holy 
altar, he says, is the righteous soul.8 Origen, in like manner, fre- 
quently spiritualizes; but specially concerning the Eucharist he 
says, that “‘ Celsus would give first-fruits to demons, so we offer 
first-fruits to God.’’ 9 


Tn all these fathers, then, we 


1“ Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia 
loqui, sed nec docere, nec tinguere, nec 
offerre.” — De Veland. Virginibus, c. 9. 

2 “ Oblationes pro defunctis, pro nat- 
alitiis annua die facimus.” — De Corona 
Militis, c. 2. 

3 « Sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris 
sed Deo nostro et ipsius, sed quo modo 
precepit Deus, pura prece. Non enim 
eget Deus, Conditor universitatis, odoris 
aut sanguinis alicujus.” — Ad Scapulam, 


c. 2. Cf. Cont. Mare. Lib. rv. c. 1, where 
he calls Sacrificium mundum . . sim- 
plex oratio de conscientia pura. So De 


Orat. 28. ‘* Hee (i. e. oratio) est hostia 
spiritualis, que pristina sacrificia dele- 
bit. 
5 Ἢ τῆς σεμιδάλεως προσφορὰ ἡ ὑπὲρ τῶν 
94 


find no certain reference to any 


καϑαριζομένων ἀπὸ τῆς λέπρας προσφέρεσϑαι 
παραδοϑεῖσα, τύπος ἦν τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαρι- 
στίας, ὃν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάϑους Ἰησοῦς 
Χριστὸς Κύριος ἡμῶν παρέδωκε ποιεῖν. ---- 
Dial. pp. 256, 260. 

5 Mede, On the Christian Sacrifice, ch. 
1, 

6 Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαὶ καὶ εὐχαριστίαι 
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀξίων γινόμεναι, τέλειαι μόναι καὶ 
εὐάρεστοΐ oe Ἦν Θεῷ ϑυσίαι καὶ αὐτὸς φημι. 
— Dial. “pil 

1 Ἢ ϑυσία οἷ ἐκκλησίας, λόγος ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἁγίων ψυχῶν ἀναϑυμιώμενος, ἐκκαλυπτομένης 
ἅμα τῆς ϑυσίας καὶ τῆς διανοίας ἁπάσης τῷ 
Θεῷ. --- Clem. Strom. VII. p. 848. 

8 βωμὸν δὲ ἀληϑῶς ἅγιον, τὴν δικαίαν 

id. 


xv. — 
2 Cortra Celsum, Lib. vi11. c. 88. 


746 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Arr. XXXL 


offering in the Eucharist, except the offering of the bread and wine 
in the way of gifts or oblations to the service of God; as the fine 
flour and the meat or bread-offerings were presented by the Jews, 
and with them a sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving. The use of 
the word θυσία, sacrifice, gives no contradiction to this statement: 
for besides that it is the rendering of the Hebrew mincha by the 
LXX. translators, it has been clearly proved that the word by no 
means of necessity implies an offering of a slain victim, though such 
was its primary signification; but that it is also applicable to all 
other kinds of offerings and oblations, whether it be in classical or 
biblical Greek. 

Very early we have express mention of a Christian altar? 
But we can infer no more from the use of the word altar, than from 
the use of the word sacrifice. A sacrifice (θυσία) implies an altar 
(θυσιαστήριον). If the offering of the bread and wine, as first-fruits 
to God, be esteemed a sacrifice, then that whereon it is offered 
would be esteemed analtar. If the offering of prayer and praise be 
a sacrifice, the soul, from which they rise up to God, would be the 
altar. We need not question that these early fathers, as undoubt- 
edly those after them, believed that the bread and wine offered to 
the Lord were offered in remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, 
and so, that the Eucharist was a commemorative sacrifice. But it 
is remarkable, that even this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice does 
not expressly appear before the time of Cyprian. If the earliest fa- 
thers really believed that Christ in the Eucharist was offered afresh 
for the sins of the quick and dead, it is certainly a most extraordi- 
nary example of silence and reserve, that, for two centuries after 
Christ, they should never once have explained the sacrifice of the 
Eucharist in any manner, but either as an offering of first-fruits to 
God, like the mincha or fine flour of the Israelites, or else as an of- 
fering of praise and thanksgiving and spiritual worship. 

In Athenagoras indeed (A. ἢ. 150) occurs, I believe, the first 
example of that remarkable expression, so universally adopted by 
later fathers, the wnbloody sacrifice. ‘ Of what service to me are 
whole burnt-offerings, of which God has no need? Although it be 


1 See Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, ch. 1. ἃ sacrifice, Svoia, as well as Abel’s offer- 
sect. 1. He shows, from classical author- ing of cattle. Heb. xi. 4. Hence, the 
ities, that “ to sacrifice is to give to the Christian and theological a eae of 
gods” (Stew δωρεῖσϑαι ἐστι τοῖς Yeoic); the term, not only to ani but also te 
and especially, that ϑυσία in the Greek, inanimate offerings. 

and sacrificium in the Latin, are the com- =? Yvovacrypiov. See Ignat. Ad 
mon rendering of 71732 in the Hebrew. : τι Magnes. 7; Trall. 7; Phil 


The Apostle calls Cain’s offering of fruits” 


Src. 1. OFFERED ON THE CROSS. T47 


right to offer an wnbloody ‘sacrifice, and to bring the reasonable ser- 
vice.”’! Mr. Johnson sees ‘¢ no occasion to doubt, that he means 
the oblation of material bread and wine.” ? It may be so; though 
we cannot with certainty say that he had the Eucharist in view at all. 
If he had, the very term, “ unbloody sacrifice,” takes us back to 
the distinction among the Israelites between offerings of slain 
beasts, bloody sacrifices, and offerings of bread, flour, and fruits, wn- 
bloody sacrifices. And so the very name by which the Eucharist 
was so constantly called afterwards, and which possibly Athenag- 
oras first applied to it, seems to place it, as a material offering, 
rather with the mincha, or bread-offering, than with the ὁλοκαύτωμα, 
the burnt-offering, or bloody sacrifice of the Jews. 

From the time of Cyprian, however, it is a fact too plain and no- 
torious to need demonstration, that the fathers speak of the Eu- 
charist as a sacrifice, with special reference to the Body and Blood 
of Christ, commemorated and spiritually present in that holy sacra- 
ment. St. Cyprian, referring to the priesthood of Melchizedek as 
a type of Christ’s priesthood, says, that ‘in the priest Melchizedek 
we see prefigured the Sacrament of the Lord’s sacrifice.” ὃ. “* Who 
was more a priest of the most High God, than our Lord Jesus 
Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father? and He offered 
the same which Melchizedek had offered, 7. 6. bread and wine, even 
His own Body and Blood.” * He then goes on to argue for the 
use of wine in the Eucharist, and not of water merely, which he 
considers essential for the perfect following of Christ, in His first 
institution of the sacrament. He says, that “therefore Christ’s 
Blood is not offered, if there be no wine in the cup.”’> “If Jesus 
Christ our Lord and God is Himself the High Priest of God the 
Father, and first offered Himself a sacrifice to His Father, and then. 
commanded this to be done in remembrance of Him, then that 
priest truly performs the part of Christ, who imitates what Christ 
did, and then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God 
the Father, if he so begin to offer, as he sees Christ to have offered 
before.”’ ® 


1 τί δέ μοι ὁλοκαυτωμάτων ὧν μὴ δεῖται ὁ 
Θεός; Kati τοι προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμακτον 
ϑυσίαν, καὶ τὴν λογικὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν. 
τα Legatio pro Christianis, 12. 

2 Unbloody Sacrifice, ch. 11. sect. 1. 

% “ Ttem in sacerdote Melchisedee sac- 
rificii Dominici sacramentum prefigura- 
rye gmt — Epist. 63, p. 149. Oxf. 
168 


*“Num quis magis sacerdos Dei 
Summi quam Dominus noster Jesus 
“ Christus? qui sacrificium Deo Patri 


obtulit ; et obtulit hoc idem quod Mel- 
chisedec obtulerat, id est panem et vi- 
num, ‘suum scilicet corpus et sangui- 
nem.” — Ibid. 

δι ἐς ‘Unde apparet sanguinem Christi 
non offerri, si desit vinum calici.’”’? — 
Ibid. p. 151. 

8 “ Nam si Jesus Christus, Dominus et 
Deus noster, ipse est summus sacerdos 
Dei Patris; et sacrificium Patri se ip 
sum primus obtulit, et hoe fieri in sui 
commemorationem precepit ; utique ille 


748 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Arr. XXXL 


This is the first use of such language; but it was common from 
this time. The Roman Catholics claim it, as clearly proving that 
a true sacrifice and offering up anew of Christ in the Eucharist 
was believed in the earliest time. Protestants have, on the con- 
trary, asserted that no material sacrifice is intended at all; that 
there is allusion only to a spiritual sacrifice, wherein the whole 
Church considered as Christ’s Body is offered to God.1 We may 
be so said symbolically to offer up in sacrifice ourselves ; and that 
is all.2 Time and space will not permit a full investigation of the 
many passages which would elucidate this question, nor a full ex- 
amination of the arguments. Against the Romanist theory the fol- 
lowing facts appear to me fatal. First, there is the already noticed 
silence of all the fathers, till the middle of the third century, on so 
essential a part, if it be a part, of the Eucharistic doctrine. That 
Justin, Irenzeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, should never 
have known of it, or, knowing, should never have mentioned it, 
seems utterly incredible, if the doctrine were from the beginning. 
Secondly, if there were always offered in the Church a real sacri- 
fice of Christ Himself, then no other sacrifice could be compared 
with it. It must far exceed in glory and in\value everything be- 
sides. Yet we find the fathers preferring spiritual sacrifices even 
to the oblation in the Eucharist. ‘ Will they drive me from the 
altars?” says Gregory Nazianzen. “ But I know there is another 
altar, whereof these visible altars are but the figures... .. To 
that will I present myself; there will I offer acceptable things, sac- - 
rifice and offering and holocausts, better than the one now offered, 
as much as truth is better than a shadow. From this altar no one 
can debar me.”® 15 it possible that any one should prefer an altar 
. and a sacrifice, “all,” as he says, ‘the work of the mind” (ὅλον 
τοῦ νοῦ τὸ ἔργον), before the very offering up of the Saviour of the 
world? We may add, that the fathers too frequently speak of the 
sacrifice of Christians as spiritual sacrifices,‘ for us to imagine that 


sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui 
id quod Christus fecit imitatur; et sac- 
rificium verum et plenum tune offert in 
Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre 
secundum quod ipsum Christum videat 
obtulisse.” — Ibid. p. 155. 

1 This undoubtedly was one of the 
views which the fathers took of the Eu- 
charistic Sacrifice. “ Hoc est sacrificium 
Christianum ; multi unum Corpus in Christo. 
Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus 
nota frequentat Ecclesia, ubi ei demon- 
atratur, quod in ea re quam offert, i 
offeratur.” — Augustin. De Civit. Bei, 
Lib. x. ο. 6, Tom. vit. p. 248. 


2 This seems to be Waterland’s opin- 
ion. See On the Eucharist, ch. x11. 

8 Θυσιαστηρίων εἴρξουσιν ; ἀλλ᾽ olda καὶ 
ἄλλο ϑυσιαστῆριον, οὗ τύποι τὰ νῦν ὁρῶ Ἷ 
εν τούτῳ παραστήσομαι, τούτῳ ϑύσω δεκτὰ, 
ϑυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα, 
κρείττονα τῶν viv προσαγομένων, ὅσῳ Kpeit- 
Tov σκιᾶς ἀλήϑεια.. .. τούτου μὲν οὐκ 
ἀπάξει -" τοῦ ϑυσιαστηρίου πᾶς ὁ βουλόμε- 
νος.--- Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xxv1i1. Tom. ἡ 
1. p. 484, cited by Waterland, On the Bu- 
charist, ch. x11. 

* See for instance Euseb. Dem. Evangel. 
Lib. 1. ὁ. x., cited by Waterland, as 
above. Cyril of Jerusalem calls the 


Sec. I.] OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 749 


they held a literal offering up of a literal sacrifice (that sacrifice 
being Christ’s Body and Blood) on the altar in the Eucharist. | 

But, on the other hand, it seems to me that we cannot at once 
dismiss the whole question without farther inquiring in what sense 
the fathers did see in the Eucharist the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, 
for the propitiation of our sins. Their language, from the time cf 
Cyprian, is both too uniform and too strong, for us to doubt that it 
had a pregnant significance. 

The Eucharist undoubtedly succeeded to, and corresponded with 
the Passover. The latter was the type; the former is the memo- 
rial of the death of Christ. One typical of the great sacrifice ; 
the other commemorative of the same. The one was the great 
federal rite of the Jews; the other is the great federal rite of the 
Christians. In this view the fathers much considered it. And so, 
as they viewed the Passover as a typical sacrifice, they viewed the 
Eucharist as a commemorative sacrifice. We have already heard 
Chrysostom imagining and depicting, in his own fervid language, 
*‘the Lord sacrificed and lying, the priest standing by the sacrifice 
and praying,! ὅς." And it is admitted by most persons, that the 
Lord’s Supper, if not a sacrifice, is yet (spiritually of course) a 
feast upon a sacrifice. Now the sacrifice feasted on is undoubtedly 
the Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God. Our ordinary idea of offering 
a sacrifice, when that sacrifice is a living victim, is that it must be 
slain when it is offered. But the early Christians appear to have 
understood that, although Christ was once for all slain, and so did 
once for all offer up Himself to God; yet, that every time His sac- 
rifice is commemorated, and that sacrifice spiritually fed upon, we 
do, as it were, present before God, plead before the Father, the effi- 
cacy of that great offering, the all-prevailing merits of His precious 
Blood. The same is true, more or less, in every act of devotion. 
No well-instructed Christian ever prays to God, without pleading 
the atonement and the death of Christ. So, in effect, at every 
_ prayer we present to the Father the sacrifice of His Son. But 
more especially, and with most peculiar significance, we may be 
said to plead His merits, to present His efficacious passion, and so, 
in a certain sense, to offer His all-prevailing sacrifice before the 


Eucharist ‘‘a spiritual sacrifice, an un- 
bloody service,” τὴν πνευματικὴν ϑυσίαν, 
τὴν ἀναίμακτον λατρείην. ---- Cat. Mystayog. 
v. c. 6. St. Augustine describes the 
Christian sacrifice as the Sacrament or 
sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice. 
“ Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis 
sacrificii sacramentum, hoc est, sacrum 


signum est.” — De Civitate Dei, Lib, x. 
c. 5, Tom. vit. p. 241. 

All such language is quite inconsistent 
with the notion of an actual offering up 
of Christ afresh for the sins of the 
world. 

1 Chrysost. De Sacerdotio, 111. quoted 
under Art. xxviir. 


750 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Arr. XXXL 


mercy-seat of God, when with the consecrated symbols of His 
Body and Blood before us, we approach the Table of the Lord, to 
be fed by Him with the food of everlasting life. 

In this sense then, most especially, the fathers seem to have 
esteemed the Eucharist, not only a sacrificial feast, but also a sac- 
rifice. It was indeed by a metonymy. ‘The Eucharist was a remem- 
brance (ἀνάμνησις) of the great sacrifice on the cross. And so it 
was called by the name of that which it recorded. But it was not 
only a remembrance to ourselves, it was also esteemed a special 
mode of pleading it before God; and therefore it was named a sac- 
rifice. And as the sacrifice of the cross was the propitiatory sacri- 
fice, so this too was called a sacrifice of propitiation, both because 
of its recalling that great propitiatory sacrifice, and because by en- 
abling us spiritually to feed on, and to take the blessed fruit of that 
sacrifice to ourselves, it was the means of bringing home to our 
souls the pardoning efficacy of Christ’s death, the propitiation for 
sins which He has wrought.} 

No doubt, the other notions concerning the oblations in the Eu- 
charist were kept in constant view. First, the fathers esteemed it 
an offering or presenting of the gifts of bread and wine, and of the 
alms of the faithful to the service of God ; secondly, as an offer- 
ing of the sacrifice of prayer and praise; thirdly, as a presenting 
of ourselves, our souls and bodies, and so of the whole mystical 
body of the faithful, to the Lord ; but, fourthly, they esteemed it a 
memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, a recalling of the efficacy of that 
sacrifice, and a pleading of its efficacy for the salvation of their 
souls. 

This last notion it is which makes them use such solemn and 
awful language concerning it, which could not be applicable to the 
other views of it. Thus the Liturgy of St. James calls it the 
“*tremendous and unbloody sacrifice.” ' St. Chrysostom calls it 
“the fearful and tremendous sacrifice.” 2 So also “‘ most tremen- 
dous sacrifice.” Yet the same father, when he enters into an ex- 
planation, tells us that it is not a new sacrifice, or an offering up 
of Christ afresh ; for he says, “ There is but one sacrifice ; we do 
not offer another sacrifice, but continually the same. Or rather 
we make a memorial of the sacrifice.”’* And so St. Augustine, 


? Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, in the pas- ὀ 8 φρικωδεστάτη ϑυσία. 
sage just cited, Cat. Mystagog. v. ¢. 6, 4 Οὐκ ἄλλην ϑυσίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀεὶ 
speaks of the “ spiritual Sacrifice, and the ποιοῦμεν " μᾶλλον δὲ ἀνάμνησιν ἐργαζόμεϑα 
loodless service over that sacrifice of pro- ϑυσίας. ---- Homil. xvi1. in Epist. ad He- 
vitiation,” ἐπὶ τῆς ϑυσίας τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ. breos. See Suicer, 8. v. ia, τι. 2, 
3 φοβερὰ καὶ φρικώδης ϑυσῖα. --- Homil. Tom. τ. p. 1421. 
ΧΧΧΙΥ, τὴ 1 ad Corinth. 


Sec. 1. OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 751 


“Christians celebrate the memorial of the same fully finished 
sacrifice, by sacred oblation and participation of Christ’s Body and 
Blood.” 4 

It is easy to see that, when the doctrine of transubstantiation had 
once been invented and defined, the doctrine of the fathers con- 
cerning the commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist 
would be perverted into the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacri- 
fice of the mass. That doctrine is plainly enough expressed in the 
canons of the Council of Trent. Therein it is forbidden to deny, 
that a true and proper sacrifice is offered to God,—that Christ 
made His Apostles priests, on purpose that they might offer His 
Body and Blood,— that there is a propitiatory secrifics for quick 
and dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, — that it profits others 
as well as the partakers,? ὅσο. 

From the belief, that in the mass there was a true offering up of 
Christ, not only for the benefit of the receiver, but anew for the 
sins of all the world, came naturally the custom, that the priest 
should offer the sacrifice, but the people should not communicate. 
Among the early Christians, all who did not communicate, left the 
Church. But, when the doctrine of the mass was once established, 
the people stayed to witness the offering up of the sacrifice, which 
they believed to be profitable both to them and to all the world, 
though the priest alone offered it, and the priest alone received. 
The Eucharist had, in fact, ceased to be a Sacrament. It had 
become, in the belief of the majority, a propitiatory offering, not a 
covenanting rite. 

There was perhaps nothing against which the reformers gener- 
ally were so strong in their denunciations, as against this. They 
deemed it derogatory to the one, full, perfect, and sufficient sacri- 
fice, once offered on the Cross.‘ Christ,”’ says Luther, “ once 
offered Himself; nor did He will to be offered up anew by any; 
but He willed that a memorial of His sacrifice should be observed.” ὃ 


1 “ Hebrei in victimis pecudum quas 
offerebant Deo... . prophetiam cele- 
brabant future victime, quam Christus 
obtulit. Unde jam Christiani peracti 
ejusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant, 
sacrosancta oblatione, et participatione 
Corporis et Sanguinis Christi.” — Contra 
Faustum, Lib. xx. c. 18, Tom. virr. p. 
325. 

2 Sess. xx11.Can. 1. “ Si quis dixerit 
in missa non offerri Deo verum et propri- 
um sacrificium .... anathema sit.” 

Can. τι. “Siquis dixerit.....in illis 
verbis Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, 
Christum non instituisse Apostolos sacer- 


dotes, aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi aliique 
sacerdotes offerrent Corpus et Sanguinem 
suum ; anathema sit.” 

Can. 111. ‘‘ Si quis dixerit misse sac- 
rificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum 
actionis, aut nudam commemorationem 
sacrificii in cruce peracti, non propitiato- 
rium, vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque 
pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, 
satisfactionibus, et aliis necessitatibus of- 
ferri debere; anathema sit.” 

The Creed of the Council has : “ Pro- 
fiteor in missa offerri: Deo verum, pro- 
prium et propitiatorium sacrificium.” 

3 « Christus semel seipsum obtulit, non 


752 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Arr. XXXL 


Calvin, after explaining the meaning of the word sacrifice as ap- 
plied to the Eucharist by the fathers, does not blame them for the 
use of that term, but still regrets that they should have approached 
too near to Jewish notions. ‘“ Now that the sacrifice has been 
offered and completed,” he says, “" God gives us a table where we 
may feast, not an altar on which the victim is to be offered. He 
has not consecrated priests to immolate, but ministers to distrib- 
ute.” 1 He calls the sacrifice of the mass, the greatest abomina- 
tion of all those erected against the Eucharist.2 — 

The language of the English reformers is of still more interest 
to us. Let us hear Ridley, the most esteemed among them. “ The 
whole substance of our sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church 
in the Lord’s Supper, consisteth in prayers, praise, and giving of 
thanks, and in remembering and showing forth of that sacrifice 
upon the altar of the Cross; that the same might continually be 
had in reverence by mystery, which, once only and no more, was 
offered as the price of our redemption.” ? Elsewhere he acknowl- 
edges, that “the priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice, if it be 
rightly understood ;”’ which he explains by saying, that “ It is called 
unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner and in a mystery, 
and as a representation of that bloody sacrifice.”* But the mass 
he calls, ‘a new blasphemous kind of sacrifice, to satisfy and pay 
the price of sins, both of the dead and of the quick, to the great 
and intolerable contumely of Christ our Saviour, His death and 
passion; which was, and is the only sufficient and everlasting, 
available sacrifice, satisfactory for all the elect of God, fron Adam 
the first, to the last that shall be born to the end of the World.” ὃ 

The dread of the mass, which has prevailed generally among 
the reformed Churches, has made the. majority of their members 
fear to speak at all concerning an Eucharistic sacrifice. Yet there 
have not been wanting, in the English Church especially, men of 
profound learning, deep piety, and some of them by no means 
attached to peculiar schools of doctrine, who have advocated the 
propriety of speaking of the Christian sacrifice, and of adopting, 
in some measure, the language of the primitive Church concern- 
ing it. 
voluit denuo ab ullis offerri, sed memo- 2 Jnst. 1v. xviii. 1. 
riam sui sacrificii voluit fieri.”” — De 8 Disputations at Oxford, Works, Par- 
Abroganda Missa Privata, Tom. 11. p. 249. ker Society, p. 211. 

1 “Mensam ergo nobis dedit inqua ὁ Ibid. p. 350. 
epulemur, non altare super quod offera- | ° A Piteous Lamentation, Works, p. 62. 
tur victima ; non sacerdotes consecravit, Compare Cranmer, of the True 


qui immolent, sed ministros qui sacrum and Catholic Doctrine, Bk. v., Works, τι. 
epulum distribuant.”’ — Znstit. rv. xviii. 12. pp. 447-468. 


OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 753 


The first who spoke strongly and clearly to this effect, was 
the learned Joseph Mede (a. νυν. 1635). His discourse was origi- 
nally a Sermon on Malachi i. 11, which he maintained to be pro- 
phetic of the Eucharistic offering. And the offering in the Eucha- 
rist he defines to be an oblation of prayer and praise, of bread and 
wine, analogous to the mincha of the old Testament, and a com- 
memoration of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.' Dr. Cudworth 
shortly after wrote his treatise on The true notion of the Lord's 
Supper, wherein he denied to the Eucharist the name of a sacrifice ; 
but especially insisted that it was ‘a feast upon a Sacrifice.” Grabe, 
in the notes on his edition of Irenzeus (a. ἢ. 1702) maintained the 
sentiments of Joseph Mede; for which he was attacked by Bud- 
deus, a learned Lutheran,? who accused him of advocating the sae- 
rifice of the mass, and afterwards by others, though he was defended 
by Pfaffius, also a Lutheran. Sentiments in accordance with 
Mede’s, and not much diverse from Grabe’s, were undoubtedly 
adopted by a large number of our divines: e. g. by Hammond,* by 
Archbishop Bramhall,> by Bishop Patrick,® by Bishop Bull,’ by 
Hickes,’ by John Johnson,® and many others. 

Bishop Bull’s words may express the view which most of these 
divines have taken: “It is true, the Eucharist is frequently called 
by the ancient fathers an oblation, a sacrifice; but it is to be 
remembered that they say also, it is θυσία λογικὴ καὶ ἀναίμακτος, 
a reasonable sacrifice, a sacrifice without blood: which how can 
it be said to be, if therein the very Blood of Christ were offered 
up to God? . . . In the holy Eucharist we set before God bread 
and wine, ‘as figures or images of the precious Blood of Christ, 
shed for us, and of His precious Body’ (they are the very words 
of the Clementine Liturgy); and plead to God the merit of 
His Son’s Sacrifice once offered on the cross for us sinners, and 
in this Sacrament represented, beseeching Him for the sake there- 


Sec. I.] 


1 See Mede’s Works, p. 355. London, 
1677. The discourse is most valuable, 
and deserving of all attention. 

3 Buddeus, De Origine Misscee Pontifi- 
στα. 

8. Pfaffius, Irenei Fragm. Anecdot. 
ὦ Practical Catechism, p. 418. London, 


5 Epistle toM. De la Milletitre, Works, τ. 
p. 54, Edit. Anglo-Cath. Library. “We 
do readily acknowledge an Eucharistical 
Sacrifice of prayers and praises ; we pro- 
fess a commemoration of the Sacrifice of 
the Cross; and, in the language of Holy 
Church, things commemorated are re- 
lated as if they were then acted.... We 

95 


acknowledge a representation of that ac- 
tion to God the Father : we acknowledge 
an impetration of the benefit of it: we 
maintain an application of its virtue. So 
here is a commemorative, impetrative, 
applicative sacrifice .... To make it a 
suppletory sacrifice, to supply the defects 
of the only true Sacrifice of the Cross, I 
hope both you and I abhor.”’ 

ὁ On the Christian Sacrifice. 

7 Answer to the Bishop of Meaux, Lect. 
111. Works, 11. p. 251.. Oxf. 1827. 

8 Treatise on the Christian Priesthood, 


ch. 11. 
9 On the Unbloody Sacrifice. 
19 Constitut. Apostol. v11. 25. 


754 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Arr. XXXL 


‘of to bestow His heavenly blessing on us. . . . The Eucharistical 
sacrifice thus explained is indeed λογικὴ θυσία, a reasonable sacri- 
fice, widely different from that monstrous sacrifice of the mass 
taught in the Church of Rome.” ? ° 





Secrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


1. E have seen, that in the mass the priest is said to offer 

up Christ afresh, as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the 
sins of quick and dead. That is to say, the mass is a repetition 
or iteration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. 

This is in direct contravention of a large portion of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. There (from ch. ν. 1 to the end of ch. x.) St. 
Paul is showing the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to that of 
the Levitical priests; the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ 
over the sacrifices offered under the Law. Now the very line of 
argument which he takes, all rests upon the permanency of Christ, 
His priesthood, and His sacrifice. ‘‘ They truly were many priests, 
because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. 
But this Man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable 
priesthood . . . . who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to 
offer up ΑΡΑΣΥΨΗ first for His own sins, and then for the people’s: 
for this He did once for all (ἐφάπαξ) when He offered up Himself” 
(Heb. vii. 28, 24, 27). So, again, having observed that the Jewish 
high-priest entered into “the Holiest of all once every year, not 
without blood” (Heb. ix. 7): he adds, that Christ, not by the 
blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood entered in once 
for all (ἐφάπαξ) into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- 
tion for us” (ver. 12). And again, ““ Christ is not entered into the 
holy places... . that He should offer Himself often... . but now 
once for all (ἅπαξ) in the end of the world hath He appeared to 
put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed 
into men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ 
was once offered to bear the sins of many,” &c. (Heb. ix. 24, 26, 
27, 28). 

The first twenty-two verses of the 10th Chapter are devoted 
to farther insisting on this truth. The repetition of the Jewish 
sacrifices, St. Paul tells us, resulted from their imperfection. If 

1 Bishop Bull, as above. 


Sec. Π.] OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 755 


they could have made “ the comers thereunto perfect .. .. would 
they not have ceased to be offered?” (vv. 1, 2). But “it is not 
possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin ” 
(v. 4). Hence, “every priest” under the Law “ standeth daily 
ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can 
never take away sins. But He, after He had offered one sacrifice 
for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God . . . . For by 
one offering He hath perfected roREVER them that are sanctified ” 
(vv. 11, 12, 14). And the conclusion which is drawn is, that, 
as Christ has obtained remission for our sins, and ‘* where remission 
of these is there is no more offering for sins” (v. 18); therefore 
we may “draw near with a true heart with a full assurance of 
faith” (v. 22); plainly, as being assured, that the.one sacrifice, 
once offered, has been fully sufficient for all our sins. 
_ Now, nothing can be plainer than this argument; and if it 
proves anything, surely it must prove, that to believe in the repe- 
tition of Christ’s sacrifice is to believe in its imperfection. And if 
it be imperfect, in what a state are we !— we, who are lost sinners, 
and who have no hope but in the efficacy of the atoning Blood of 
Christ. If that atoning Blood be not of infinite value, we are of 
all creatures most miserable. But if it be of infinite value, and 
if the Sacrifice be perfect, and “ able to make the comers thereunto 
perfect,” then the Apostle assures us, that it cannot need, that it 
will not admit of, repetition. ‘¢ The worshippers once purged shall 
have no more conscience of sins”’ (ch. x. 2). ‘* We are sanctified 
through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (ver. 
10). There is “a new and living way consecrated for us through 
the veil, that is to say, His Flesh ” (ver. 20). And not only may . 
we know, to our eternal comfort, that the one sacrifice has been 
full, perfect, and all-sufficient ; but to our warning too we are told, 
that, ‘if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of 
the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (ver. 20). All 
combines to assure us, that the one Sacrifice has been once offered, 
that it admits no addition, that it can never be renewed. It is 
once for all, as man’s death is but once. It is one and forever, 
as God’s judgment is one and to eternity (Heb. ix. 28). . 
We may therefore confidently adopt the strong language of on» 
Article, that “‘ the sacrifices of masses were blasphemous fables and 
dangerous deceits.”’ 


II. Yet the Christian Church is said to be ‘an holy priesthood ; 
and is “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through 


156 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Arr. XXXL 


Jesus Christ ” (1 Pet. ii. 5). Those spiritual sacrifices are, 1. The 
sacrifice of prayer and praise: “ By Him let us offer the sacrifice 
of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of the lips, giving 
thanks to His name” (Heb. xiii. 15). 2. The sacrifice of alms and 
of the first-fruits of our substance: “To do good and to commu- 
nicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” 
(Heb. xiii. 16). 3. The sacrifice of ourselves to the Lord : “1 be- 
seech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye pre- 
sent your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which 
is your reasonable service ” (τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν), Rom. xii. 1. 

Hence, though the propitiatory sacrifice of our blessed Saviour has 
been offered once for all, never to be repeated ; it is still our privi- 
lege and duty to offer Eucharistic sacrifices or thank-offerings — 
“a reasonable ministration’? — “acceptable to God through Jesus 
Christ.” Such Eucharistic offerings correspond, as we have already 
seen, with the thank-offerings, the wave-offerings, the meat-offer- 
ings, the unbloody sacrifices of the Jews; not with the bloody sac- 
rifices, or offerings of atonement. 

It was the belief of the whole ancient Church, that the Lord’s 
Supper consisted of two parts: one from God to us, God feeding 
us with the spiritual Body and Blood of His dear Son; the other 
from us to God, we sending up to Him the sacrifice of praise and 
thanksgiving, consecrating to Him of the fruits of our increase, and 
‘presenting ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, 
holy, and lively sacrifice unto Him.” Hence the whole ordinance 
was esteemed, not only as a feast, but also as an Eucharistic sacri- 
fice, or thank-offering. 

And moreover the Apostle has declared it to be a “ showing 
forth (xarayyedia) of the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Cor. xi. 
26). It was therefore, as we have seen, esteemed by the fathers a 
commemoration, or * continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the 
death of Christ.” And, not only did they think of it as reminding 
themselves of God’s infinite mercy to their souls, but also they be- 
lieved it a proper occasion for pleading the greatness of that mercy 
before Him, from whom it comes down. It was a telling forth of 
Christ’s sacrifice to man, a supplicatory representing of it to God. 


1 There has been much questioning as_ the Lord,” 1 Cor. x. 21. This, however, is 
to the propriety or impropriety of calling putin opposition to the “ table of demon- 
the Lord’s Table an Altar. The word gods,’’ which was probably an altar. Also 
appears to have been used by the fathers, in Mal.i. 7, 12, “altar” and “ table of the 
even from the time of Ignatius. SeeIgn. Lord” seem to be synonymous. In Matt. 
Ad Ephes. v.; Tertullian, De Orat. x1x. ν, 28, whether our Lord speaks of things 
&c. The only name by which we are as they were under the Jewish economy, 
certain that it is called in the new Testa- or prophetically of what should be in the 
ment, is τράπεζα Κυρίου, “the table of Christian Church, cannot certainly be re- 


OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 757 


Lastly, they believed the prophecy in Malachi (that “ among the 
Gentiles, in every place, incense should be offered to God’s name, 
and a pure offering,” mincha purum, Mal. i. 11) to have especial 
reference to the spiritual sacrifices thus offered in the Holy Com- 
munion. And we, in accordance with the saints of old, and with 
the chief lights of our own communion, adopt such language in 
such a sense; though the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, as 
suppletory to the sacrifice of the cross, we may reject as monstrous, 
and fear as profane. 


Sxc. IL] 


cross. ‘The Christian feastis at the Eu- 
charist, though the great Sacrifice was 
offered at the crucifixion. Hence it is 


solved ; and therefore if cannot be con- 
cluded, whether he calls the Eucharisti- 
cal table an altar or not. In Heb. xiii. 10, 


St. Paul says, “ We have an altar, where- 
of they have no right to eat which serve 
the tabernacle.” This is by many 
thought conclusive in favour of the use 
of the term altar for the Lord’s table; for, 
though we may speak of the cross, on 
which the great Sacrifice was offered up, 
as the Christian altar, yet the Apostles 
could not have spoken of eating of the 


contended, that the altar, at which Chris- 
tians have a right to eat, must be the ta- 
ble‘of the Lord. The English reformers 
seemed, latterly at least, determined to 
give up the word altar, for fear of appear- 
ing to give sanction to the sacrifice of 
the mass. But the general language of 
Christians, both early and late, has been 
favourable to the use of it. 


ARTICLE XXXII. 


---Φ--- 


Of the Marriage of Priests. 


Bisnors, Priests, and Deacons, are not 
commanded by God’s Law, either to vow 
the estate of single life, or to abstain from 
marriage : therefore it is lawful for them, 
as for all other Christian men, to marr 
at their own discretion, as they sh 


De Conjugio Sacerdotum. 


Eriscoris, presbyteris et diaconis 
nullo mandato divino preceptum est, ut 
aut celibatum voveant, aut a matrimo- 
nioabstineant. Licet igitur etiam illis, ut 
ceeteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc "ad 
pietatem magis facere judicaverint, pro 


judge the same to serve better to god- suo arbitratu matrimonium contrahere. 





Srecrion I.— HISTORY. 


ii admits of evident proof, that in the earliest ages of the Church 
bishops, priests, and deacons, were allowed to marry. St. Poly- 
carp speaks of Valens, a presbyter, and his wife. Chzremon, 
Bishop of Nilus, a man of very great age, is mentioned by Euse- 
bius * as flying from the Decian persecution, together with his wife. 
The same Eusebius, speaking of Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis, and 
Philoromus, says that they were urged, in the persecution under 
Diocletian, to have pity on their wives and children, and for their 
sakes, to save their own lives.2 St. Clement of Alexandria, in 
which he is followed by Eusebius, says, that the Apostles Peter and 
Philip begat children, and that St. Paul also was married, but did 
not take his wife about with him, that he might not be hindered in 
his missionary journeys.* The same statement, namely, that St. 
Peter, St. Paul, and the other Apostles, were married, occurs 
in the interpolated epistles of St. Ignatius ;5 a spurious work in- 
deed, and no doubt of much later date than the real Ignatius, but 
not altogether valueless on that account ; as forgers always aim at 
verisimilitude, and would hardly express an opinion which was 
universally exploded and condemned at the time they wrote. Ori- 
gen also appears to have believed that St. Paul was married.® 
: en ine ἃ 42. rid oe ges a τ oe gg Ρ. 585; Pot- 

® Tb. για]. ὁ. 9. ter, cf. Lib. rv. p. 607; Euseb. ἢ. 2. 111. 


4 Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποι- 
σαντο... . . καὶ Α ων adhoc © οὐκ ὀκνεῖ ἔν 6 Coteler. Tom. 11. p. 81. 
“ν" ἐπιστολῇ τὴν αὐτοῦ προσαγορεῦειν σύζ-. δ “ Paulus ergo (sicut quidam tradunt) 


a ΎΝ ΌΩΝ 





Sec. I.] OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. 


159 


Tertullian, on the contrary, thought St. Peter was the only mar- 
ried Apostle! Eusebius, after Hegesippus, clearly records that St. 
Jude was married, for he speaks of his grandchildren.? Epiphanius 
considered Peter, Andrew, Matthew, and Bartholomew, all to have 
been married men.? 

There is no doubt but that in very early times second marriages 
were considered as disqualifying for ordination. Thus Origen 
says, that “no digamist could be a bishop, presbyter, deacon, or 
widow in the Church.” * And Tertullian adduced this custom, as 
an argument against second marriages generally.° ‘This, of course, 
was derived from the rule laid down by St. Paul, that a bishop 
should be *‘ the husband of one wife”’ (1 Tim. iii. 2). Yet many 
eminent fathers did not so interpret the words of the Apostle. For 
instance, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact understand, 
that the custom so common among the Jews of divorcing one wife 
and marrying another is that which the Apostle is forbidding, 
when he would have no one ordained, save those who were monog- 
amists.© And it appears, that in the earliest times it was by no 
means universal to refuse ordination to those who had been mar- 
ried twice.’ 

It is not to be concealed, however, that very soon an exagger- 
ated esteem for celibacy crept in. The ascetic views of the Es- 
senes, of the Montanists, of the Gnostics, and of other sects exter- 
nal to the Church, affected more or less the Church itself. The 
dread of heathen vices, felt especially by those who had themselves 
once been heathens, made many attach some notion of impurity 
even to marriage. Hence, the language of our Lord (in Matt. 
xix.) and of St. Paul (in 1 Cor. vii.) was pressed to its utmost con- 
sequences. ‘They had spoken of a single life as more favourable to 
piety, inasmuch as it separated more from worldly distractions 
and gave more leisure for attending to the things of the Lord. But 
the primitive Christians by degrees fell into the notion, that though 
‘marriage was a state permitted, it was still, if possible, to be shunned. 


cum uxore vocatus est, de qua dicit ad 
Philippenses scribens, Rogo te etiam, ger- 
mana compar,” &e. — Origen. Com. in 
Rom. i. 

1 “Petrum solum maritum invenio per 
socrum.” — De Monogamia, 8. 

2 H, E. Lib. 111. α. 20. 

8. Heres. xxviii. 10. Tom. 1. p. 1042. 
Colon. See more such authorities in Co- 
telerius’s note 44, Tom. 1. p. 80. 

4 “ Ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non 
solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiz repellunt : 
heque enim episcopus, nec presbyter, nec 


diaconus nec vidua possunt esse digami.”’ 
Orig. Hom. xvi1t. in Lue. 

5 Tertull. De Monogam. c. 11. 

. _Chrysost. Hom. x. in1 Tim.; Hom. 
a: in Tit. ; Theodoret. Com. in 1 Timi iii. 

: ‘Theophyl. In 1 Tim. iii. 2. 

τ So Tertullian, addressing the Catho- 
lics says, ‘ Quot enim et digami presi- 
dent apud vos, insultantes utique aposto- 
lo.” — De Monogam. ο. 12. See also other 
authorities; Bingham, #. A. Bk. rv. ch 
v. sect. 4. 


OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. [Arr. XXXII. 


760 


It was not actually unholy, but it was inconsistent with a high de- 
gree of holiness.!_ Hence, by degrees also, the belief began to pre- 
vail, that the special ministers of God ought to choose the higher 
condition, and devote themselves to celibacy. Hence, some of 
the clergy began to separate from their wives. Hence, too, some 
laymen were disposed to withdraw themselves from the ministra- 
tions of the married clergy. 

But these errors, when first they sprang up, were opposed by 
councils and canons. The Canons of the Apostles order, that ‘A 
bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall not put away his wife under 
pretext of religion. If he does, he shall be separated from com- 
munion ; and, if he persevere, he shall be deposed.” 2. The Council 
of Ancyra (A. D. 814) decrees, that those who, at the time of or- 
dination as deacons, declared their intention to marry, should be 
allowed to marry and to remain in the ministry ; but it forbids the 
marriage of those who professed continence at the time of ordina- 
tion.2 The very important Council of Gangra, the canons of which 
were received throughout the East and West (a. p. 324), anathe- 
matizes “those who separate themselves from a married priest, as 
though it were not right to communicate in the oblation, when such 
an one ministers.’ But especially observable is the decision of 
the first and greatest of the general councils, the Council of Nice 
(a. p. 825). There it was proposed, that the clergy should be 
obliged to abstain from the society of their wives, whom they had 
married before ordination. But Paphnutius, an eminent Egyptian 
prelate, himself unmarried, earnestly protested against putting so 
heavy a burden on’the clergy; for he'said, that marriage was hon- 
ourable in all men, and that it ought to suffice, that the clergy 
should not marry after ordination, but that they should never be 
required to separate from their wives. Thereupon, the whole council 
assented to the words of Paphnutius ; and the motion was repressed.® 


1 Two extreme views are taken of this 
fact. The Romanist argues that, from 
the very first, the Church was in favour 
of clerical celibacy ; therefore it must be 
right. The author of Ancient Christianity 
contends, that the exaggerated esteem for 
asingle life prevailed from the beginning ; 
therefore the Church was corrupt from 
the very days of the Apostles. Δ little 
vandour will lead us to a conclusion differ- 
ent from both of these. We may admit, 
that an undue esteem for virginity was a 
natural prejudice for the first Christians 
to fall into ; and accordingly, before ver 
long, they ually slid into it. But it 
was gradually. We find nothing of the 


sort in Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, Ig- 
natius, Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Clemens 
Alexandrinus. Any one who will read 
Clem. Alexand. (Stromat, Lib. 111.) will 
see, how highly that learned father es- 
teemed matrimony, and how little he 
made of celibacy. The first trace of the 
pry ge notion in question is to be 
found in the writings of the ascetic Mon- 
tanist, Tertullian. 

2 Can. Apostol. Can. v. ; ef. Can, 11. 

8 Cone. Ancyr. Can. x. 

* Concil. Gangr. Can. rv. 

δ Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1. c. 11; Soz- 
omen, Lib. 1. ο. 28, &c. 


Sx. 1] OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. 761 


It is true, the Council of Illiberis (Elvira in Spain, a. Ὁ. 300) 
had prohibited the clergy from the use of marriage.! But this does 
not appear to have been a council of much weight; nor can its de- 
crees, or those of such as agreed with it, be compared with the 
decrees of the Canons of the Apostles, the Council of Gangra, and 
the first great Council of Nice. It is certain, that for a long time, 
not only priests and deacons, but bishops also, were allowed to 
marry. Socrates says that, even in his day, many eminent bishops 
lived with their wives, and were the fathers of families.2. In the 
East, the Council in Trullo (4. p. 692) laid down the rule, that 
though bishops must observe celibacy, yet presbyters and deacons 
might live with their wives ;* and this rule has governed the cus- 
tom in the Eastern Church from that day to this. 

Yet this very canon of the Trullan council speaks of it as then 
a received rule in the Roman Church, that deacons and presbyters 
should profess before ordination that they would no more live with 
their wives. That council itself declares that, in decreeing other- 
wise, it followed the ancient rule of Apostolical order.‘ 

It is not easy, nor necessary, to trace exactly the progress of the 
principle of clerical celibacy in the West. There appears long to 
have been a struggle between the natural feelings of the clergy and 
the rigid discipline of the Church: the clergy, from time to time, 
in different parts of Europe, relapsing into the custom of living 
with their lawful wives, and the sterner disciplinarians among the 
bishops striving to repress it. Gregory VII. (a. vp. 1073) is con- 
sidered as having most effectually restrained the marriage of the 
clergy. He held several councils in Italy, and especially one at 
Rome, a. Ὁ. 1074: where the marriage of priests was condemned 
under the name of concubinage. 

Two years afterwards (a. D. 1076), a synod of English bishops 
was held at Winchester, under Archbishop Lanfranc. That Synod 
decreed, that canons should have no wives, and forbade in future 
any priest to marry, er bishops to ordain such as would not declare 
that they were unmarried ; but it permitted such priests as lived 
in the country, and were already married, to retain their wives. 


1 Concil. Illiber. Can. xxxi1t. So the Aovrag διακόνου ἢ πρεσβυτέρου χειροτονίας 
Council of Carthage (a. p.-390). Can. ἀξιοῦσϑαι καϑομολογεῖν ὡς οὐκέτι ταῖς αὐτῶν 
11. enjoins continence on all the clergy. συνάπτονται γαμεταῖς " ἡμεῖς τῷ ἀρχαίῳ ἔξα- 

2 Socrates, Lib. v. ο. 22. κολουϑοῦντες κανόνι τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ἀκρι- 

8 Concil. Trull. Can. x11. The Coun- βείας καὶ τάξεως τὰ τῶν ἱερῶν ἀνδρῶν κατὰ 
cil in Trullo was held at Constantinople. νόμους συνοικεσία καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν Mara 
It is also called Concilium Quinisextum, βουλόμεϑα, x. τ. 2.— Concil. Trull. Can 
from being supplementary to the fifth and xxrrr. 
sixth councils. 5 Concil.. Winton. Can. 1.; Wilkins’s 

4 ᾿Επειδὴ ἐν Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίᾳ év τάξει Concil. 1. p. 867. 
τάνονος παραδεδόσϑαι i τοὺς μέλ- 


762 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. [Arr. XXXIL 


Under Anselm, the successor of Lanfrane (a. p. 1102), it was 
finally decreed in England, that neither priest nor deacon, nor even 
subdeacon, should be ordained, who did not profess chastity, @. 6. 
celibacy: a decree which was further confirmed by the Council of 
London, a. pv. 1108.1 

In general, it may be considered that the laity in the middle ages 
were favourable to the celibacy of the clergy; but many of the 
wiser prelates of the Church considered it a doubtful, if not a dan- 
gerous restraint. It perhaps tended, in a considerable degree, to 
dispose many of the clergy themselves to the doctrines of the Ref- 
ormation. Yet nothing could be a more effectual instrument for 
uniting the priestly orders together, and giving them common inter- 
ests. At the same time, no doubt, it often made them more effi- 
cient, and left them more disengaged from secular employments 
and pursuits. 

The reformers were all opposed to the vows of continence. Lu- 
ther, though a monk, and therefore doubly bound to celibacy, 
married. It was matter of much debate, whether those who had 
once bound themselves to a single life did well to abandon it, even 
though they had discovered that such vows were undesirable and 
wrong. Luther’s views were very peculiar. He held monastic 
vows to be impious and demoniacal:? and marriage he sometimes 
speaks of as a duty incumbent on all men. Indeed, though we 
may probably make much allowance for the vehemence of his lan- 
guage and the impetuosity of his character, he says many things 
on this subject which no well instructed Christian can approve. 

Our own Cranmer not only married, but married twice. He, 
however, had not been, like Luther, a monk. Monastic vows 
were much more stringent than the mere profession of celibacy made 
by the priesthood. Some there were, like Bishop Ridley, who, 
though disapproving of restrictions on marriage, thought it not dec- 
orous to contract matrimony after they had promised celibacy, even 
though it were in the days of their former ignorance. Of course, 
those who did marry, laid themselves open to the charge of embrac- 
ing the reformed doctrines for the sake of worldly indulgences.’ 

The Council of Trent has one canon condemnatory of those who 
would permit the clergy to marry. The Confession of Augsburg 
has not imitated the conciseness of the Romish council, having two 
very long Articles, one on the marriage of the clergy, the other on 
monastic vows.® 

5 Wilkins’s Coneil. 1. p. 887. * Sess. xx1v. De Sacr. Matrimon. Can. 1x. 


2 De Votis Monasticis, Tom. 11. ant. δ Syl . 211, 219. 
® See Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 4 ete: 


Sec. Π.1 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. τοῦ 


At this day then, the Eastern Church allows presbyters, but not 
bishops, to. marry: the Roman Church enjoins celibacy on all: 
the Reformed Churches leave all to marry at their own discretion. 





Srcrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


I. ὦ isdcserree are, no doubt, some strong arguments in favour of the 
celibacy of the clergy, which it may be well to consider 
before proceeding to the arguments on the other side. 

Both our blessed Lord and St. Paul unquestionably give the 
preference to an unmarried life, as being a more favourable state 
for religious self-devotion than the state of matrimony. Our Lord’s 
words are, “* He that is able to receive it, let him receive 10. To 
some it is a gift of God, and those who have the gift are advised to 
abstain from marriage, ‘for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake ’”’ (Matt. 
xix. 12). Iassume this to be the sense of the passage: first, be- 
cause the whole stream of Christian antiquity so explained it ;1 
secondly, because I know no commentator of any credit in modern 
times, of whatever Church or sect, who has explained it differently. 
St. Paul’s language illustrates our Lord’s. He begins by saying, 
that it is a good thing for a man not to marry (1 Cor. vii. 1). Still, 
as a general rule, he recommends marriage (vv. 2-5). He recom- 
mends it, however, as a matter of permission, not as giving a com- 
mand, (κατὰ συγγνώμην, οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, ver. 6); for he would pre- 
fer to see all men as he was himself; ‘+ but every man has his 
proper gift, one after this manner, and another after that” (ver. 7). 
To the unmarried he says, it is good for them, if they abide as he 
abode (ver. 8). Celibacy is indeed particularly to be advised “ for 
the present distress ” (ver. 20).2 And as a general rule, he lays it 
down, that there is benefit in an unmarried condition, because it is 
less subject to the cares of this life, and causes less solicitude and 
anxiety, giving more time for religion and devotion to God. These 
are his words: “‘ I would have you without carefulness. He that 
is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he. may please 
the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things that are of 


1 See for instance, Tertull. De Virgini- 2 It may be a question whether “‘ the 
bus Velandis, c. 10; De Cultu Feminarum, present distress ’’ means the state of per- 
u. 9; Origen Jn Matt. Tom. xv. 4, 5; secution, to which the early Christians 
Chrysostom, Homi/. ux11. in Matt.; were exposed, or the distress and anxi- 
Epiphanius, Heres. rvi11. 4, Tom. 1. p. ety of the present life. — See above, p. 
491; Theophylact. Zn Matt. xix., &e. 350, note 3. 


764 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. [Arr. XXXII. 


the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also be- 
tween a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the 
things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit ; 
but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she 
may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit ; not 
that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, 
and that ye may attend on the Lord without distraction” (vv. 32 
—35). 

Here then, though the Apostle is far from finding fault with 
marriage, he evidently prefers celibacy ; not because there is evil 
in marriage, but because there is less distraction in an unmarried 
life.1_ Such a life, undertaken and adhered to from religious mo- 
tives, involves a stricter renunciation of the world, a greater absti- 
nence from earthly comforts and enjoyments, a more entire devotion 
of the soul to the one end of serving God. 

We may fairly conclude from such language of the Apostle, 
coupled with the words of our Lord, that the tone of popular opin- 
ion, concerning marriage and celibacy, is low and unscriptural. 
With us marriage is ever esteemed the more honourable state ; 
celibacy is looked on as at least inferior, if not\contemptible. ‘ But 
the base things of the world, and things that are despised, hath 
God chosen ” (1 Cor. i. 28). Anda true tone of Christian senti- 
ment would make us honour those who live apart from earthly joys, 
that they may live more to God.? 

Now these considerations, at first sight, seem to make for the 
celibacy of the clergy. God’s ministers should ever seek the most 
excellent way. Marriage may be good and honourable; but if 
celibacy be a more favourable state for religious advancement, giv- 
ing us leisure, like Mary, “to sit at Jesus’ feet,” not ‘careful and 
troubled about many things;” then must it be well for Christ’s 
special servants to choose that good part, that they may “ attend 
upon the Lord without distraction.” 

We may add to this prime argument some motives of Church 
policy. An unmarried clergyman is expeditior, more readily moved 
from place to place, abler to go where his duty may call him, to do 
what his calling may require of him. He has no children to think 
about, no wife to carry about with him, no interests, but those of 
the Church and of the Church’s Head. His strength, his wealth, 
his intellect, he may devote all to one end; for he has no need to 

1 “For the evil is not in the cohabita-  ® Matt. xix. and 1 Cor. vii, have been 
πὶ ba in the impediment + the strict- considered in another point of view under 


ph of life.” — Chrysost. Hom. xx. in Art. xrv. pp. 848-851; which see. 


Sec. Π.1 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. 765 


have anxieties to provide for his own, or to preserve himself for 
their sakes. He has no temptation to heap up riches for others ; 
none to form worldly schemes and seek worldly interest, for the ad- 
vancement of his family. ‘“ He careth only for the things of the 
Lord, how he may please the Lord.” 

II. Now, I do think, we ought not to underrate such argu- 
ments as these. They have, doubtless, much weight; and accord- 
ingly long prevailed to keep the clergy ἴῃ ἃ state of single life. 
But no inferences from Scripture, or apparent policy and expe- 
diency, can weigh against plain declarations to the contrary; and 
that more especially when the question concerns a penal enactment, 
—a restraint upon a law of nature, and upon instincts implanted 
in us by the Creator, and sanctified to us by His blessing. And 
we assert, that Scripture does contain plain and direct evidence 
that God Almighty not only sanctions and blesses marriage in gen- 
eral, but sanctions and blesses it in the clergy, as well as in the laity. 
** What God hath cleansed, that call not we common.” 

1. If we look at the old Testament, the priests were not only 
allowed, but encouraged to marry. This is not, of course, a proof 
that the clergy under the new Covenant may marry ; but the Ro- 
man Church is especially fond of comparing all things concerning 
the Levitical priesthood with the priesthood of the Gospel. 

2. That some of the Apostles were married is admitted by all. 
But it is asserted by the Roman Catholics, that they did not live 
with their wives after they were ordained to the Apostleship. St. 
Paul, however, says, “" Have we no power to lead about a sister, a 
wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord 
and Cephas ?”’ (1 Cor. ix. 5). It is true, that some of the fathers 
understood this, not of a wife, but of those Christian women who 
ministered to the Apostles, as some had ministered to our Lord 
when on earth (Luke viii. 2, 3).1_ But the more ancient fathers 
understood it of carrying their own wives about with them. We 
have already seen that Clement of Alexandria so interpreted this 
passage ; and his testimony is quoted with approval by Eusebius.” 
Tertullian also distinctly asserts from the same passage of Scrip- 
ture, “ that it was permitted to the Apostles to marry, and to lead 
about their wives with them.” ® The earlier interpretation, there- 
fore, according with the more obvious sense of the words, we can- 

1 See Theodoret and Theophylact ad H. E. 111. 80, cited in the first sec- 
h. 1, Isidor. Pelus. Epist. cuxxvi. Lib. 111. _ tion. 

The same is the opinion of Ambrose, Je- 3 “ Licebat et Apostolis male at 


rome, and Augustine. uxores circumducere.” — De 
2 Clem. Strom. Lib. 111. p. 585; Euseb. Castitat. c. 8. 


766 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. [Arr. XXXII. 


not but suspect that the later fathers interpreted them otherwise, 
from the then unduly increasing esteem for celibacy.! 

8. But further St. Paul especially directs that bishops and dea- 
cons should be the husbands of one wife (1 Tim. iii. 2,12; Tit. i. 
6); and lays down special rules concerning their management of 
their children (1 Tim. iii. 4), and the conduct of their wives (ver. 
11).2. A strange interpretation has been given to this passage by 
some of the Roman. Catholics; namely, that the Apostle speaks 
figuratively, meaning that a bishop should have’ but one diocese. 
Yet I imagine that this would not be often pressed. St. Chrysos- 
tom, and after him Theodoret and Theophylact,* as we have seen 
already, understand the Apostle to forbid that any should be or- 
dained who had divorced one wife and married another ; a custom 
which seems not only to have been common with Jews and hea- 
thens, but to have crept in even among Christians. Some indeed 
among the fathers held, that second marriages after baptism were 
thus forbidden by St. Paul ;® but the ancient Church always inter- 
preted the passage, as permitting and sanctioning at least a single 
marriage to the clergy, though, in some sense, forbidding a second. 
St. Chrysostom has even been thought to express himself as though 
it might be a question whether St. Paul did not enjoin marriage, 
though himself declaring that he understood it of permission, not of 
injunction. And in another place he says, St. Paul speaks of the 
marriage of the clergy on purpose ‘to stop the mouths of heretics 
who condemned marriage ; showing that marriage is not unholy in 
itself, but so honourable, that a married man might ascend the holy 
throne.” ? 

Thus then the words of the Apostle, as interpreted by all the 
ancient Church, whatever they may say about a second marriage, 
unquestionably sanction a single marriage to the ministers of Christ. 


1 From this interpretation arose that 
objectionable custom in the Church, that 
resbyters should have female attendants 
nstead of wives, called mulieres subintro- 
ducte, συνείσακτοι, &c. This was forbid- 
den by the Council of Ancyra, Can. x1x. 
It is condemned by Ppipaanine, Heres. 
uxxviit, See Suicer, Tom. 1, pp. 28, 
88, 810. 
2 Paton in this verse does not cer- 
tainly mean the wives of the bishops and 
deacons. It is interpreted by some of 
the widows or deaconesses. 

8 Chrysost. Hom. x. in 1 Tim. ; Hom. 
i. in Tit.; Theodoret Jn 1 Tim. iii. 2; 
Theophylact Jn 1 Tim. iii. 

4 Hammond on 1 Tim, iii. 2. 


5 Origen, Hom. xvii. in Luc.; Tertull. 
De Monogam. c. 11, quoted in last Section. 
See also Ambros. Offic. Lib. 1. c. 50; 
Hieronym. Ep. 11. ad Nepotian. 

8 Δεῖ οὖν φησι τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον 
εἶναι, μιᾶς γύναικος ἄνδρα " οὐ νομοϑετῶν 
τοῦτό φησιν, ὡς μὴ εἶναι ἄνευ τούτου γίνε- 
σϑαι, i τὴν a 
x. in 1 Tim, 
Tim. iii. 2. 

7 τίνος ἕνεκεν τὸν τοιοῦτον εἰς μέσον 
παράγει ; ἐπιστομίζει τοὺς αἱρετικοὺς τοὺς 
τὸν γάμον διαβάλλοντας, δεικνὺς ὅτι τὸ 
πρᾶγμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναγὲς. ἀλλ᾽ οὕτω τίμιον 
ὡς per’ αὐτοῦ δύνασϑαι καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἅγιον 
ἐπιβαίνειν ϑρόνον. --- Hom. τι. in Tit. 


ρίαν κωλύων. --- Hom. 
also Erasmus on 1 


Sec. II.] OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS, 167 


These words alone are fully sufficient to prove the truth of the Ar- 
ticle we have in hand, —to prove that ‘ bishops, priests, and dea- 
cons are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of 
single life, or to abstain from marriage.” And we may ask, if God 
has not bound us, what power in Heaven or earth has authority to 
bind? What can be more presumptuous than to add to the moral 
laws of the Creator, to forbid as sinful what He has ordained as 
holy ? 

Again, our Lord especially says, that ‘all men cannot receive 
the saying ” that single life may be more profitable for the kingdom 
of Heaven CMatt, xix. 11). St. Paul says, that “ every man has 
his proper gift’ (1 Cor. vii. 7) ; and that he does not speak of the 
benefits of celibacy, ‘to cast a snare upon”’ us (1 Cor. vii. 35). 
It is therefore strangely presumptuous to impose that on whole 
bodies, which our Lord says some cannot receive, which St. Paul 
calls a peculiar gift, and which he will not enjoin on any, lest it be 
a snare to them. 

4. There are some general considerations which much strengthen 
the above more particular arguments. ‘* Marriage is honourable 
in all men” (Heb. xiii. 4). What is honourable in all, cannot 
surely be prohibited to any. The “ forbidding to marry ”’ is expressly 
spoken of by the Spirit, as a sign of the apostasy of the latter days, 
and as arising from “the hypocrisy of liars, whose own consciences 
are seared with a hot iron.”?! Above all, marriage is a type of the 
union of Christ and his Church (Eph. v. 23-32). It is “" conse- 
crated to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and rep- 
resented the spiritual unity of Christ and His Church.” Can we 
believe that to be unfit for the ministers of Christ, which Christ 
Himself has honoured with such high approbation and. blessing ? 

5. Lastly, it is said that many benefits are derived to the Church 
from an unmarried priesthood. Such expediency, however, cannot 
be set up against the word of God. Romanists themselves have 
often admitted, that, if there were good reasons for the clergy not 
to marry, there were still better reasons why they should marry. 
And, but that such addition to our Scriptural proof seems un- 
necessary, we might easily bring many arguments from. experience 
to show, that the snares of celibacy have been as great as those of 
matrimony ; and that the charities of wedded life have been as 
profitable to the married, as the asceticism of single life can have 
been to the unmarried priesthood. 


1 ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, κωλύοντων γαμεῖν, 
κ. τ. A. —1 Tim. iv. 2, 3. 


«4 


ARTICLE XXXII. 


----Φ.- 


Excommunicate Persons, how they are 
el to be avoided. 


Tnar person, which by open denuncia- 
tion of the Church is rightly cut off from 
the unity of the Church, and excommu- 
nicated, ought to be taken of the whole 
multitude of the faithful as an Heathen 
and Publican, until he be openly recon- 


De Excommunicatis Vitandis. 


Qui per publicam Ecclesia denunciatic- 
nem rite ab unitate Ecclesie precisus est, 
et excommunicatus, is ab universa fide- 
lium multitudine, (donec per peenitentiam 
publice reconciliatus fuerit arbitrio judi- 


cis competentis,) habendus est tanquam 
ciled by penance, and received into the ethnicus et publicanus. 
Church by a Judge that hath authority 


thereunto. 





Sxection I.— HISTORY. 


‘tn odie off from the people is a punishment often denounced 
and commanded in the old Testament. It appears in general 
to have meant death by the judgment of God (1 Kings xiv. 10), 
or by the hand of man (Exod. xxxi. 14, 15; xxxv. 2; Levit. xvii. 
4, &c.). But the later Jews understood it of excommunication, of 
which they had three different kinds. The first and lightest sort 
was called Ἢπ (Middui), separation or excommunication for a 
month ; to be extended to two or three months in case of impeni- 
tence. The second and more severe kind was called pam ( Cherem), 
excommunication accompanied with imprecations from Deut. xxviii. 
and other places of Scripture. A person so separated was not 
allowed to have intercourse with any of the Jews, except for the 
purchase of necessary food: they might not consort with him, ‘no, 
not to eat;”? a custom to which St. Paul is thought to allude in 
1 Cor. v. 11. The third and heaviest form of excommunication 
was called με (Shammata), a word the derivation of which is 
obscure, and which some have supposed to be of the same signifi- 
cation with the Maranatha of St. Paul, namely, “ the Lord com- 
eth.” Whether originally the second and third form may not 
have been the same is still doubtful. 

From the very earliest times the Christian Church exercised a 


1 See Buxtorf, Ler. Chald Talm. Rab- 827, 2468; also Jahn’s Archaologia Bib 
bin. 8. vv. “1D, Don, nme, pp. 1803, ‘ca, § 252. 


Sec. 1. ΟΕ EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS. 


769 


power of the same kind. Clemens Romanus probably alludes to it 
in his First Epistle to the Corinthians.1_ Hermas speaks of some 
that have sinned and are “ rejected from the tower,” (which in his 
vision means the Church,) and who have afterwards to do penance 
for their fault.? Irenzus tells us of several persons of heretical 
tendency, who were obliged to perform penitential acts;* and of 
Cerdon, as having been several times put to penance, and finally 
excommunicated.* Origen says, that ‘offenders, especially such 
as offend by incontinence, are expelled from communion.” >  Ter- 
tullian speaks of the gravity of Church censures ; and of excommu- 
nication as a kind of anticipation of the judgment of God.6 From 
him indeed we obtain a considerable insight into the customs of 
public confession, of the penance and humiliations to which offend- 
ers were put, of their absolutions and restoration to communion, 
and of the utter and final excommunication from Church privileges 
of obstinate and incorrigible sinners.’ The canons of the Apostles, 
being especially directed to the ordering of discipline in the Church, 
are fullof sentences of separation and excommunication.’ It is 
difficult to assign the exact date of these venerable canons ; but 
Bishop Beveridge places them at the end of the second, or the 
beginning of the third century. 

It being thus apparent, that, from the very first, excommunica- 
tion was a regular part of the discipline of the Church, it is unneces- 
sary to continue our history through the following centuries, when 
no one questions that such a punishment was in frequent use. 
We may be content to notice, that among the Christians, as among 
the Jews, there prevailed a distinction of greater and lesser ex- 
communication. ‘The lesser excommunication, called ἀφορισμὸς or 
separation, consisted in exclusion of offenders from the participation 
of the Eucharist and from the prayers of the faithful, but did not 
expel them wholly from the Church; for they might be present 
at the psalmody, the reading of the Scriptures, the sermon, and 
the prayers of the catechumens and penitents, but might not re- 
main to the service of the Communion. But the greater excom- 


1 καὶ 57; Coteler. Tom. 1. p. 178, vid. 
note 93. 

* Herm. Pastor. Lib. 1. Vis. 111. § 5. 

3 Lib. 1. ο. 18, 

* “ Modo homologesin faciens, modo 
ab aliquibus traductus in his que doce- 
bat male, et abstentus est a religiosorum 
hominum conventu.” — Lib. 111. ¢. 4. 

5 Οἷα δ' ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ἀγωγὴ καὶ περὶ 
ἁμαρτανόντων καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἀκολασται- 
νόντων, οὖς ἀπελαύνουσι τοῦ κοινοῦ, κ. τ. A. 
— Origen. Cont. Cels. Lib. 111. 

97 


δ “Nam et judicatur magno cum pon- 
dere, ut apud certos de Dei conspectu ; 
summumque futuri judicii prajudicium 
est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communi- 
catione orationis, et omnis sancti com- 
mercii relegetur.”’ — Tertull. Apolog. c. 89. 

7 See Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, pp. 
251-254, 262. 

8 See for instance Canons 5, 8, 9, 10, 
12, 28, 29, 31, 36, 48. On this subject 
see he grea Penitential Discipline, ch. 
11. pt. 1. 


770 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, [Arr. XXXL 


munication, called Anathema or total separation (παντελὴς ἀφορι- 
os), excluded from all Church communion whatever, from ap- 
proaching to any assembly of the faithful for prayer, or sermon, or 
reading of the Scriptures.!_ The former kind, it is needless to add, 
was used for lighter offences; the latter for grievous and deadly 
sins. 

Something has already been said (under Art. XX'V.) concerning 
the custom of public confession, which was a penitential discipline, 
enjoined on those who were sentenced either to the greater or 
lesser excommunication, previously to their restoration to Church 
fellowship; and also concerning the private confession, which grad- 
ually superseded public confession, and so loosened discipline and 
weakened the hands of the Church. Yet excommunications, in 
cases of heresy, or of royal and national opposition to the authority 
of the Church, assumed a new and more formidable aspect in the 
Middle Ages ; so that, although private offenders against morality 
or piety might escape more easily under the shield of private con- 
fession, the obstinate heretic, and the nation whose ruler was not 
submissive to the see of Rome, were handled with a severity un- 
heard of before. The excommunications of Huss and Wickliffe 
and Luther are evidence of the mode of proceedings against indi- 
vidual dissenters from the established faith. The excommunication 
of the Emperor Henry IV. by Pope Gregory VII., and the inter- 
dict on England under John by Innocent III., exemplify the use 
which the successors of St. Peter made of the keys of the kingdom, 
when kings and nations bowed down before them.” 

The latter part of the Article speaks of reconciliation to the 
Church by penance, and of reception into the Chureh by a compe- 
tent judge. 

Besides exhomologesis or public confession, the early Church 
used to impose a term of public penance on those who expressed 
contrition for their sins, and desired to be restored to communion. 
The performance of penance was anciently a matter of considerable 
time, in order that the sincerity of the repentance might be tested, 
and that full evidence of sorrow might be given to the Church. 
Accordingly, penitents were divided into four distinct classes, called 
respectively flentes, audientes, substrati, and consistentes. The flen- 
tes, or mourners, were candidates for penance, rather than persons 


1 See Bingham, Ε΄. A, Bk. xv1. ch. τι. sius, whom St. Ambrose excommunicat- 

7, 8. ed and put to penance for the slaughter 

* The primitive Church did by no of seven thousand men in Thessalonica. 
means exempt princes from its discipline, — Theodoret, Lib. v. c. 18; Bingham, 
as is well known in the case of Theodo- xv1. iii. 5. 


Sec. I] HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 771 


actually admitted to penitence. They used to lie prostrate at the 
church-door, begging the prayers of the faithful, and asking to be 
admitted to do penance. When they had been admitted to pen- 
ance, they became audientes or hearers ; because then, though not 
restored to communion, or the prayers of the Church, they might 
hear the Scriptures and the sermon. From this condition they 
passed into the state of substrati or kneelers. ‘These were allowed 
to stay in the nave of the Church, and to join in certain prayers, 
specially put up for them, whilst they were on their knees. Lastly, 
they became consistentes or co-standers, persons allowed to stand 
with the faithful at the altar, and join in the common prayers, and 
to witness, but not partake of the Holy Communion.’ During the 
term of their penance, penitents were obliged to appear in sack- 
cloth, with ashes on their head, to cut off their hair, to abstain 
from all feasting and innocent amusements, to show liberality to the 
poor, and to make public confession of their sins.? How early this 
distinction of four orders of penitents was made, and the special 
rules concerning their penance were laid down, is not indisputably 
certain. The time of the Novatian schism, 7. 6. the middle of the 
third century, is the earliest period at which it is thought that 
mention is certainly made of these distinctions and rules of disci- 
pline.® 

It was only for heavy offences that excommunication, and 
therefore penance, were ever inflicted. In general it may be said, 
that the crimes were reducible to three classes; namely, unclean- 
ness, idolatry, bloodshed.’ The duration of the term of penitence 
was different, according to the magnitude of the offence, the aggra- 
vation of its guilt by circumstances, and the penitence or impeni- 
tence of the offender. For the heavier crimes, ten, fifteen, twenty, 
thirty years, and even the whole of a life, were not thought too 
long. Some were not reconciled to the Church but on imminent 
danger of death, and some were thought to have rebelled against 
God too grievously ever to have communion in this world; though 
God’s mercy might be hoped for them in the next. Moreover, we 
may add, that, generally speaking, public penance was allowed but 
once to sinners of any sort.° 

As for the judge or officer who had power to restore to com- 
_munion and give absolution, it was ordinarily the bishop. He, for 
just reasons, might moderate and abridge the term of penance ; ὃ 


1 Bingham, Κ΄. A. xvii. ch. 11. * Marshall, Penitential Discipline, ch 
2 Thid. ch. 111. 11. pt. 11. sect. 1. 
8 Tbid. xvi. ii. 2. 5 See Bingham, #, A. xviii. iv. 


6 Ibid. § 8. 


172 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, [Art. XXXII 
and, as all discipline was considered to be lodged in his hands, 


he was esteemed both as the excommunicator, and also as the 
absolver of the penitent.1 Yet, in many cases, the power of abso- 
lution was committed to presbyters; who, by authority of the 
bishop, or in his absence, and on great necessity, such as danger 
of death, might reconcile the sinner to communion, and give him 
the absolution of the Church.2 Nay! as in cases of extreme 
necessity even deacons were allowed to give men the absolution 
of baptism, so, under the like circumstances, they were authorized 
to grant penitents the conciliatory absolution.* 

Having thus considered the primitive customs, and spoken of 
some abuses in the Middle Ages of the Church, we may proceed to 
the time of the Reformation. The Council of Trent says, the 
power of excommunication is to be used “ soberly and with great 
circumspection ;”’ still, if an excommunicated person will not re- 
pent, it enjoins that, not only shall he be prohibited ‘ from Sacra- 
ments, and the Communion, and intercession of the faithful; but 
it may even be needful to proceed against him as one suspected of 
heresy ” (etiam contra eum tanquam dejeresi suspectum procedi 
possit) * 

The Reformers generally insisted on the power of excommu- 
nication. The Augsburg Confession gives bishops authority “ to 
exclude from the communion of the Church impious persons, whose 
impiety is notorious, by the word, not by human violence.” ® The 
Saxon Confession says, that “those guilty of manifest crimes ought 
to be excommunicated ; nor is just excommunication an empty 
sound ” (inane fulmen).® Calvin, who was himself the great legis- 
lator for all the Calvinistic communions, divides the discipline of 
the Church into (1) private monition; (2) reprehension before 
witnesses ; (3) excommunication’ (Matt. xviii. 15-17). For light 
offences reprehension is enough; but for heavier, exclusion from 
the communion of the Supper, humiliation before God, and testifi- 
eation of penitence before the Church, are needful. No one, not 
even the sovereign, must be exempted from such censures; which 
he illustrates by the case of Theodosius.® The Calvinistic com- 
munions in general have been very strict observers of the discipline 
thus maintained by their great reformer. 

1 Bingham. xrx, iii. 1. 5 “Tmpios, quorum nota est impietas, 

2 Thid. § 2. excludere ex communione Ecclesia, sine 

8 Ibid. § 8. On the whole subject of vi humana, sed verbo.” — Sylloge, p. 

mitive discipline read Bingham, E.A. 5 Ibid. p. 298. 

ks. XV1.-x1x., and Marshall’s Penitential 7 Instit, rv. xii. 2. 


ine. 5. Ibid. § 6. 
* Sess. xxv. cap. 111. 9 Ibid. § 7. 


Src. ΠῚ HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 


118 


The Church of England is clear enough in its principles, though 
restrained in its practice. This Article speaks plainly her doctrine. 
The rubric before the Communion gives to the curate the power 
of repelling evil livers from the Eucharist, provided that he shall 
at once acquaint the bishop. The introduction to the Commination 
Service speaks with great regret of the relaxation of godly dis- 
cipline, and with earnest desire that it may be restored. The 
canons of 1663 are sufficiently free in denouncing excommunication 
against heretics, schismatics, and dissenters of all kinds. The 
peculiar nature of the connection between the Church and State in 
England, and the prevalence of what are called Erastian opinions, 
have been the great causes why ecclesiastical censures have lost 
their power, and become a dead letter amongst us. 





Sxcrion II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


PP RERG appear two points here to be demonstrated. I. That 
the Church is divinely authorized to excommunicate offenders, 
and to restore them to communion on their repentance. II. That 
certain persons in the Church are judges, having authority thereto. 


I. Our Lord Himself gave power to His Church to excom- 
municate and absolve. In Matt. xviii. 15-18, He enjoins that, 
if one brother or fellow Christian sin against another, and refuse 
to listen to private rebuke, or to the admonition of others to whom 
the offence may be told, then the grievance is to be communicated 
to the Church.! But if, when it is told to the Church, the erring 
brother still neglects to hear and to show penitence, then he is 
to be looked on no longer as a Christian and a brother, but it is 
said, ‘‘ Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican ” 
(ver. 17). The meaning of this would be intelligible enough to 


1 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. There is no sufficient 
reason to doubt that our Lord meant 
here His Church. It was not, indeed, 
then fully set up, but He was continually 
foretelling its establishment; why then 
might He not speak of it by name? The 
word itself is probably a translation of 
the Hebrew Orn: but it is by no means 


likely, that our Lord should intend His 
Ghristian followers to tell their troubles 
to the Jewish congregation, or the elders 


thereof, who would already have excom- 
municated and rejected them. Whilst 
He was with them, He Himself would 
be the natural referee. Afterwards he 
constitutes His Church the judge; the 
Church, that is, acting through its elders, 
as the Jewish ΒΡ acted through its el- 


ders. Hence Chrysostom and Theophy- 
lact explain τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ by τοῖς mpoedped- 
ovot, — See Suicer, Tom. 1. p. 1052. 


114 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, [Arr. ΧΧΧΙΠ. 


the first disciples of Christ. They had been bred Jews, and knew 
that Jews had no communion with heathen men and publicans, 
not merely not in religious ordinances, but not even to eat. This 
direction then Christ gives to His Church, that those who, having 
sinned openly against their brethren, would not listen to her godly "ἡ 
admonitions, should be separated from the fellowship of the faith- 
ful, and treated as heathens or publicans. Then, to confirm the 
Church in her authority, to assure her that her censures, and her 
remission of censure both had a warrant from God, He adds: 
“ Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall 
be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall 
be loosed in Heaven” (ver. 18). In this context there can be no 
reasonable question, that the binding means to place in a state of 
bondage or excommunication from Church privilege, that the 
loosing signifies to restore again to the freedom of Christian com- 
munion. 

At the risk of anticipating the subject of our second division, 
we ought to compare with this the promise to St. Peter (Matt. 
xvi. 19) and to the Apostles at large (John xx. 23). To St. Peter, 
as to the Church, it is promised, that by means of the keys of the 
kingdom he shall bind, and it shall be bound in Heaven ; he shall 
loose, and it shall be loosed in Heaven. And to all the Apostles 
it is promised: ** Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted: 
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained ” (ver. 23). Now 
to no human being, save to Christ alone, has the power of for- 
giving sins primarily and absolutely been committed by God. 
(See Matt. ix. 6. Rev. iii. 7.) But to admit to the Church (ὦ. e. 
to the kingdom of Heaven, Christ’s kingdom on earth) by baptism, 
to exclude from it by excommunication, to restore again by abso- 
lution and remission of censure, — these are powers which Christ 
commits to His people, and especially to the rulers and elders of 
His people. 

To illustrate this, we must look at the practice of the Apos- 
tolic Church. In 1 Cor. v. 5, we find St. Paul enjoining the 
Corinthians to “deliver” the incestuous man “to Satan for the 
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of 
the Lord Jesus.” It is true many of the ancients were of opinion 
that St. Paul meant here to inflict by a miracle some bodily disease 
upon the man. But the Apostle does not say that he himself 
will deliver him to Satan, but bids the Corinthian Church to do 
80. If it were a miraculous punishment, it is far more likely that 
he should have inflicted it himself. But he bids them (ver. 4) 


Src. IL] HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 775 


assemble together, “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ;” prom- 
ises that, as their bishop, he will be with them in spirit; and ᾿ 
then tells them, with the power of the Lord Jesus to deliver the 
offender to Satan. Now the world is Satan’s kingdom ; the Church 
is Christ’s. ΤῸ expel from Christ’s kingdom is to turn over into 
Satan’s kingdom. What more fit than such language to express 
excommunication ? And to prove that this is what is meant, we 
‘find (in 2 Cor. ii.) that, when the incestuous man had repented, 
the Apostle enjoins the Corinthians to restore and forgive him ; 
and promises that he will forgive whomsoever they forgive. (See 
vy. 5-11.) All this exactly corresponds with a case of excommu- 
nication, succeeded by restoration and absolution. 

We may compare with these many passages, in which the Apos- 
tles enjoin upon Christians to withdraw from the company of breth- 
ren who do not live according to their Christian profession, but 
who are either impure in their lives, or heretical in their belief. 
(See Rom. xvi. 17. 1 Cor. v. 9; xv. 88; xvi. 22. 2 Cor. vi. 14, 
17. 2 Thess. iii. 6,14. 2 John 10,11.) These, though not all 
directly bearing on the subject, show that Christians ought to keep 
themselves from all communion with ungodly men; and therefore 
make it probable, that they should be enjoined to exclude them 
from Church-fellowship. 


II. We have next to show, that our Lord gave certain officers 
in His Church special authority, both to excommunicate, and to 
restore to communion. 

The Church in the early ages must be viewed as a distinct soci- 
ety, separated from the world at large, held together by great and 
independent interests, governed by laws peculiar to itself, and or- 
dered by its own officers. It was in the midst of the wilderness, 
with wolves and wild beasts all around it; a sheepfold, and with 
shepherds of the sheep. The shepherds or governors were the 
bishops and elders. ‘Let the elders that rule well be counted 
worthy of. double honour, especially they who labour in the word 
and doctrine” (1 Tim. v. 17). ‘* We beseech you, brethren, to 
know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, 
and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for 


1 See Theodoret and Theophylact Zn 1 text. On the opposite side see Grotius 


Cor. v. 5; Balsamon and Zonaras Jn 
Basil. Can. v11.; Beza Jn 1 Cor. v. 5; 
Estius Zn 1 Cor. v. 5; Beveridge, Not. in 
Yan. Apostol. x.; Pandecte, Tom. 11. Ad- 
notat. p. 20; Suicer, Tom. 11. p. 940. 
These all advocate the view taken in the 


and Lightfoot on 1 Cor. v. 5; also Ham- 
mond, who combines both views in one, 
thinking both excommunication and bod- 
ily disease to have been inflicted. So, I 
rather think, does St. Chrysostom. See 
Homil. xv. in 1 Cor. v. 


ὝΡΥ ΨΥ ae _— 


116 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, [Arr. ΧΧΧΙΠ. 


their work’s sake ’’ (1 Thess. v. 12,13). ‘Remember them which 
have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of 
God” (Heb. xiii. 7). ‘ Obey them that have the rule over you, 
and submit yourselves unto them; for they watch for your souls, 
as they that must give account,” &c. (Heb. xiii. 17). Such pas- 
sages show, that the primitive pastors had a pastoral α ity, as 
well as a pastoral care, 

Now we have seen, that our Lord committed to His Church the 
keys of discipline, the power to bind and to loose. But, as all bod- 
ies act through their officers, so, what at one time He gave to the 
Church as a body, at another He specially assigned to the rulers 
of that body, the Apostles and elders. To St. Peter, the first 
and most honoured of the college of the Apostles, He promised, 
“1 will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: and 
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven ” 
(Matt. xvi. 19). And the power which he thus bestowed on St. 
Peter, He afterwards yet more solemnly conveyed to all the Apos- 
tles, and apparently with them to other elders of the Church (see 
ver. 19), in the words, ‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose 
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose 
soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John xx. 22, 23). The 
hypothesis, that this commission to the first disciples of Christ was 
miraculous, and therefore temporary, is utterly untenable. If a 
miraculous power were bestowed, it was no less than a power of 
searching the heart, and pronouncing authoritatively a judgment 
of perdition on the guilty, and pardon of sins to the penitent. But 
such power is the attribute of God alone ; and He will never so give 
His glory to another. The Apostles, though endued with the gift 
of tongues, of prophecy, of miracles, were not endued with the 
power to bestow an actual remission of offences, such as would free 
the soul from all danger, when appearing before the judgment-seat 
of Christ; and as little might they hurl the thunderbolt of ven- 
geance, and sentence transgressors to the lake that burneth with 
fire and brimstone. It is plain, therefore, that the keys committed 
to St. Peter were the badge of his stewardship, as “ minister of 
Christ, and steward of the mysteries of God.” The power to bind 
and to loose was the same as the Church’s power to bind and to 
loose. And the power to retain and to remit sins, was but the 
same authority conveyed in different terms.) 


1 See Dr. Hammond’s note on John κρατεῖν in St. John are all one with the 
xx 28. He shows that the doievac and λύειν and déew in St. Matthew. 


Sec. Π.1 HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED. TTT 


Now this power, considered as the power of admitting to, and, 
excluding from the Church and her fellowship, as the Church exer- 
cised it, so the Apostles especially claimed it, as immediately result- 
ing from their own commission from Christ. In the case of the 
incestuous man at Corinth, St. Paul enjoins the Church to excom- 
municate and afterwards to restore him; but, in both instances, he 
himself is to be considered as judging with them and ratifying their 
sentence, by virtue of his own special authority as an Apostle of 
Christ ; in which office he claims to be exercising Christ’s own 
authority. Thus (in 1 Cor. v. 3, 4, 5), he says, “1 verily, as ab- 
sent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already .... In 
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, 
and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver 
such an one to Satan.” Here is a solemn excommunication, per- 
formed by the Church, ratified by the Apostle, and so confirmed 
by Christ Himself. And, in 2 Cor. ii. 10, when enjoining that the 
penitent sinner should be restored to communion, he writes, “* To 
whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave any- 
thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it, in the per- 
son of Christ.” What can be plainer than that, in both these 
cases, St. Paul considered that he had himself, as a chief governor 
in the Church, an especial power, coupled with the general assent 
of the Church, to judge, to expel, and to restore? So (in 1 Tim. 
i. 20) he says that he had himself excommunicated Hymenzus and 
Alexander. Whether we must infer that he did so of his own au- 
thority alone, or calling in other members of the Church, as asses- 
sors to him, we cannot say. Again, in 2 Cor. xiii. 1, 2, 10, we 
find him threatening to hold a regular judicial inquiry, summoning 
witnesses, not sparing those who should be proved to have sinned, 
but using sharpness, “‘ according to the power which the Lord had 
given him, to edification, not to destruction.” 

To pass to other chief pastors, besides the Apostles themselves, 
we find that to Timothy and Titus, appointed bishops in the Church, 
St. Paul lays down rules, how they should judge, rebuke, and re- 
ject (1 Tim. v. 19-21. Tit. iii. 10,11). Moreover, we have at 
least one case of the abuse of this power recorded in the new Tes- 
tament. Diotrephes, who aimed at a primacy (φιλοπρωτεύει), cast 
the brethren out of the Church (8 John 10). And herein we may 
recognize that Divine wisdom which ordained that, though the 
chief officers of the Church should be the principal executors of its 
authority, yet the authority should not be vested in them alone, 


but, with them, in the whole body of the faithful. (See again 
98 


778 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS. [Arr. XXXL 


Matt. xviii. 17, 18.) And it may appear that, as our Lord, in im- 
mediate context with the promise of ratifying Church censures and 
Church absolutions, promised that “ where two or three were gath- 
ered together in His name, He would be in the midst of them” 
(ver. 20) ; so it was with a kind of synodical authority that the 
Apostles ordinarily armed themselves, when they administered dis- 
cipline (compare again 1 Cor. v. and 2 Cor. ii), that so they might 
not seem to lord it over the heritage of God, and that their power 
might be obviously for edification, not for destruction.t 

1 If we pass from the early to the pres- mate, whose delegates they are; and 
ent times, we may observe, that our Ec- secondly, as being themselves laymen, 
clesiastical Courts are, in pee , formed and as holding power from our civil, as 
upon the primitive princi hey are, well as our ecclesiastical rulers, they rep- 


indeed, lay tribunals. * their judges resent not only the hierarchy, but also 
represent, first, the authority of the pri- the laity of the Church. 


ARTICLE XXXIV. 


———— 


Of the Traditions of the Church. 


Ir is not necessary that Traditions and 
Ceremonies be in all places one, and ut- 
terly like; for at all times they have been 
divers, and may be changed according 
to the diversities of countries, times, and 
men’s manners, so that nothing be or- 
dained against God’s Word. Whosoever 
through his private judgment, willingly 
and purposely, doth openly break the 
traditions and ceremonies of the Church, 
which be not repugnant to the Word of 
God, and be ordained and approved by 
common authority, ought to be rebuked 
openly, (that others may fear to do the 
like,) as he that offendeth against the 
common order of the Church, and hurt- 
eth the authority of the Magistrate, and 
woundeth the consciences of the weak 
brethren. 

Every particular or national Church 
hath authority to ordain, change, and 
abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church, 
ordained only by man’s authority, so that 
all things be done to edifying. 


Traditiones Ecclesiasticee. 


TRADITIONES atque ceremonias eas- 
dem non omnino necessarium est esse 
ubique aut prorsus consimiles. Nam et va- 
riz semper fuerunt et mutari possunt, pro 
regionum, temporum, et morum diver- 
sitate, modo nihil contra verbum Dei 
instituatur. 

Traditiones, et ceeremonias Ecclesiasti- 
cas, que cum verbo Dei non pugnant, et 
sunt autoritate publica institute atque 
probate, quisquis privato consilio volens, 
et data opera, publice violaverit, is, ut qui 
peccat in publicum ordinem Ecclesizx, 
quique ledit autoritatem Magistratus, et 
qui infirmorum fratrum conscientias vul- 
nerat, publice, ut ceteri timeant, arguen- 
dus est. 

Queelibet Ecclesia particularis, sive na- 
tionalis, autoritatem habet instituendi, 
mutandi, aut abrogandi ceremonias, aut 
ritus Ecclesiasticos humana tantum au- 
toritate institutos, modo omnia ad edifi- 
cationem fiant. 





ἘΠΕ Reformation was in a great measure a national movement. 
The power and authority of the see of Rome had annihilated 


the distinctions of national Churches, and produced an uniformity, 
not only of doctrine, but also of ceremonial and discipline, through- 
out the West. This Article, like the X Vth of the Confession of 
Augsburg, is an assertion of the right of particular Churches to 
retain or adopt, in things indifferent, local and peculiar usages. 
The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, headed Of Ceremo- 
nies, why some be abolished and some retained,” is a farther and 
fuller exposition of the sentiments of our Reformers on this head. 
It should be read in connection with the Article. 

The two points insisted on, and which we have to consider, are 

J. That traditions and ceremonies were not to be everywhere 
alike, but that particular or national Churches may ordain, change, 
and abolish ceremonies of mere human authority, so all be done to 
edifying. 

II. That private persons, of their private judgment, are not 


780 OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. [Arr. XXXIV. 


justified in openly breaking the traditions and ceremonies of the 
Church, which be not repugnant to God’s word. 


I. There is little direct proof, either for or against our first po- 
sition, to be drawn from holy Scripture itself. The Apostolic rule 
was, that all things should “be done to edifying” (1 Cor. xiv. 
26) ; ‘all decently and in order” (ver. 40). This certainly leaves 
a great liberty, and a great, latitude, to order the ceremonies and 
offices of the Church. 

But, if we come to Christian history, we shall find that the dif- 
ferent Churches, in early times, though having wonderful concord 
in doctrine, and in Apostolical government, had yet great variety 
in discipline and ritual. The well-known controversy concerning 
Easter very early divided the East and West. The Church of 
Rome kept Easter, as we keep it now, so that it always falls on a 
Sunday ; whilst the Churches of Asia Minor observed it on the 
fourteenth day of the month Abib, after the manner of the Jewish 
Passover, let it fall on whatever day of the week it might. The 
Apostolical Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, paid Rome a visit, to en- 
deavour to arrange with Anicetus an uniformity of custom on this 
head; but though they could come to no agreement here, they 
agreed that the unity and harmony of the Churches should not be 
broken on such a point of tradition and ceremony.! Later indeed, 
Victor, Bishop of Rome, was disposed to excommunicate the Asi- 
atic Churches, because they did not follow the Roman custom ; 
for which uncharitableness Irenzeus sent him.a letter of reproof® 

The still more important controversy concerning the rebaptizing 
of heretics arose in the next century; Cyprian and the African 
bishops maintaining the propriety of baptizing anew those who had 
received baptism from heretics; whilst Stephen and the Roman 
Church maintained, that such baptism was valid, and therefore 
that it could not be repeated. The controversy indeed ran high; 
but for a length of time each branch of the Church followed its 
own views.® 

Another instance of diversity of custom was the mode in which 
the Jewish Sabbath was treated. Some Churches, those of the Pa- 
triarchate of Antioch especially, not only observed the Christian 
Lord’s day, but also the Jewish Sabbath. On the other hand, some 
Churches used to fast on the Saturday, or Sabbath, as well as on 
the Friday ; because on the former our Lord lay in the grave, as 


. gh ΗΝ. E. 1v. 14, ν. 24. tinum, sec. 111. § xvi1t. Also Mosheim, 


Eccles. Hist, Cent. 11%. Pt, a1, ch. 111. § 
® See Mosheim, De Rebus ante Constan- 18. 


Arr. XXXIV.] OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. 781 


on the latter he was crucified. St. Augustine mentions, that St. 
Ambrose wisely determined to fast on the Saturday, when he was 
in those places where it was customary; but not to fast on that 
day, where the custom was against it.? 

Another observable thing in the early ages is, that the different 
bishops were so far independent of each other, that they were al- 
lowed to frame their own Liturgies, and even to express the Creed 
in different forms.? Accordingly, we hear of the Liturgies of An- 
tioch, and Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Rome, of Gaul, of 
Spain,® ὅς. ὅσ. 

Now, all these facts prove the right of particular Churches to 
some degree of independence one of another, as regards bare cere- 
monies and traditional rites and customs. 


II. That private persons should not wantonly break or neglect 
the traditions of the Church to which they belong, may be said 
to result from the very nature of a Christian society, and indeed of 
society altogether. 

The scriptural authority is strong in favour of obedience to both 
civil and ecclesiastical authorities; even when both are corrupt. 
Of the former see Rom. xiii. 1; Tit. iii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 13,17. Of the 
latter, we have our Lord’s injunction to His disciples to obey the 
Pharisees, because they sat in Moses’ seat, Matt. xxiii. 2,3; and 
the example of the Apostles, who, in all things not unlawful, ad- 
hered to Jewish observances and the customs of their own nation, 
even after the Church of Christ had been set up in the world. See 
Acts ii. 46 ; xxi. 20, 26; xxviii. 17. The Apostles indeed denounce 
severely those who cause divisions and schisms in the Church (Rom. 
xvi. 17. 1 Cor. iii. 8, &e.); and enjoin all Christians to obey their 
spiritual rulers, and to submit themselves to them (1 Cor. xvi. 16. 
1 Thess. v. 12. Heb. xiii. 17). 

It seems unnecessary to add authority from the primitive ages. 
The whole system of discipline and order, then so strictly observed, 
of necessity involves the principle, that laws and regulations made by 
the body of the Church were binding on, and to be observed by, 
every individual Christian who belonged to the Church. The de- 
erees of Councils and Synods, often relating to discipline and cere- 
mony, of course proceeded on the same understanding and principle. 

1 “Cum Romam venio, jejuno Sabba- trv. ad Januariam, Tom. 11. p. 154, 
to; cum hic, non jejuno; Sic etiam tu quoted by Beveridge on this Article. 
ad quam forte Ecclesiam veneris, ejus 2 See Bingham, £. A. Bk. 11. ch. v1. — 


morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse ὃ. See Palmer, Origines Liturgice, 
scandalo, nec quemquam tibi.” Jpist. ‘ Dissertation on Primitive Liturgies.” 


ARTICLE ΧΧΧΥ: 


--ς-- 


Of the Homilies. 


Tur second Book of Homilies, the sev- 
eral titles whereof we have joined under 
this Article, doth contain a godly and 
wholesome doctrine, and necessary for 
these times, as doth the former Book of 
Homilies, which were set forth in the time 
of Edward the Sixth ; and therefore we 
judge them to be read in Churches by 
the Ministers diligently and distinctly, 
that they may be understanded of the 


people. 
Of the names of the Homilies. 


1 Of the right Use of the Church. 

2 Α gainst Peril of fs ——- 

8 repairing an ing clean of 
"ρας " 

4 Of good Works: first of Fasting. 

5 Against Gluttony and Drunkenness. 

6 Against Excess of Apparel. 

7 Of Prayer. 

8 i te Ploce bid Time of Prayer. 

9 That Common Prayers and SoU: 

ments ought to be ministered in a 

known tongue. 


10 Of the reverend estimation of God’s 
Word. of 


11 Of Alms-doing. 

12 of the Nativity of Christ. 

18 Of the Passion of Christ. 

14 Of the Resurrection of Christ. 

16 Of the worthy receiving of the Sac- 
ae of the Body and Blood of 

Yhrist. 

16 Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. 

17 For the Rogation-days. 

18 Of the State of Matrimony. 


19 Repentance. 
20 "κῶν Idleness. 
21 Against Rebellion. 


De Homiiiis. 


Tomus secundus homiliarum, quarum 
singulos titulos huic articulo subjunxi- 
mus, continet piam et salutarem doctri- 
nam, et his temporibus necessariam, non 
minus quam prior tomus homiliarum, 
que edite sunt tempore Edwardi Sexti. 
Itaque eas in Ecclesiis per ministros dili- 
genter et clare, ut a populo intelligi pos- 
sint, recitandas esse judicavimus. 


De Nominibus Homiliarum. 


Of the right Use of the Church. 
Fae Peril of pape ὦ 
repairing an ping clean 
ρίαν σ΄ 


Of Works: first of Fasting. 
po ane Gluttony and f; Bema 
Against Excess of Apparel. 


(ΟἹ Prayer. 
Of the Place and Time of Prayer. 
That Common Prayers and Sacraments 
ought to be ministered in a known 


tonque. 
Of ΟΝ estimation of God’s 


ord. 
Of Alms-doing. 
of the Nativity of Christ. 
o the Passion of Christ. 
or the Resurrection of Christ. 
If the worthy receiving of the Sacra- 
ment of the Body and Blood of 
Christ. 
Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. 
or the Rogation-days. 


of the State of Matrimony. 
Repentance. ᾿ 

gainst Idleness 
Against Rebellion 





|The American revision adds, ‘‘ This Article is received in this Church, so far as 
it declares the Books of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and 
instructive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of 
England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of this Chureh: which 
also suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in churches, until a res 
vision of them may be conyeniently made, for the clearing of them, as well from 
obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references.” It is needless to add that 
the revision has never been made. — J. W.] 


ArT. XXXV.] OF THE HOMILIES. 7838 


ἡ Heperncie is not much to be said concerning this Article. At the 
time of the Reformation there was great need of simple and 
sound instruction for the people, and but few were competent to 
give it. Many of the clergy were but partially affected to the so- 
called new learning. Many were very illiterate. In many par- 
ishes, therefore, the clergy were not licensed to preach, and hence 
the reformers put forth these popular discourses, to meet the exi- 
gencies of the times. 

The First Book of Homilies, which was published in the reign 
of Edward VI., is attributed to the pens of Cranmer, Ridley, 
Latimer, and others. The second, published in Elizabeth’s reign, 
is supposed to be due in great part to Jewel. The former seems 
to be written with much greater care and accuracy than the latter, 
and is indeed most full of sound and valuable teaching. 

It is not possible to prove the assertion, that they ‘* contain a 
godly and wholesome doctrine,” without going through the whole 
book of Homilies, and commenting on them all. All writers on 
the subject have agreed, that the kind of assent, which we are 
here called on to give to them, is general, not specific. We are 
not expected to express full concurrence with every statement, or 
every exposition of Holy Scripture contained in them, but merely 
in the general to approve of them, as a body of sound and orthodox 
discourses, and well adapted for the times for which they were 
composed. For instance, we cannot be required to call the Apoc- 
rypha by the name of Holy Scripture, or to quote it as of Divine 
authority, because we find it so in the Homilies. We cannot be 
expected to think it a very cogent argument for the duty of fast- 
ing, that thereby we may encourage the fisheries and strengthen 
the seaport towns against foreign invasion.1. And perhaps we may 
agree with Dr. Hey, rather than with Bishop Burnet,’ and hold, 
that a person may fairly consider the Homilies to be a sound col- 
lection of religious instruction, who might yet shrink from calling 
the Roman Catholics idolaters. The Homilies are, in fact, semi- 
authoritative documents. The First Book is especially valuable, as 
having been composed by those who reformed our services and drew 
up our Articles. The second also shows popularly the general 
tone of instruction, which the divines of the reign of Elizabeth 
thought wholesome for the people. They are therefore of much 


1 See Homily On Good Works; and first, 242. See Burnet on Art. xxxv.; Hey, 
Of Fasting. Iv. p. 466. 


784 OF THE HOMILIES. [Άπτ. XXXV. 


value in throwing light on documents more authoritative than them- 
selves ; and may be useful for the instruction of our clergy and 
people in the doctrines of the Reformation. The higher education 
of our parish priests, and the now somewhat antiquated styl+ of 
the discourses in question, render it not very likely that they will 
ever again be much read in Churches. 

Something has been said before of the “ Homily of Salvation,” } 
which is of greater authority than the rest, being referred to in 
Article XI. as a fuller exposition of the doctrine there delivered. 
It was written by Cranmer, and is indeed of great value, sound, 
simple, and eloquent. 

It has been apparently thought doubtful by some, whether any- 
thing uninspired ought to be read in Churches. The Bible should 
be read there, prayers offered up, and sermons preached ; but to 
read ancient writings which are not inspired, is to put them on the 
same level with the inspired Scriptures. This objection has been 
considered, with reference to the reading of the Apocrypha, under 
Article VI2 What was said of that will fully apply to the read- 
ing of homilies. There can be no dangersthat the Homilies, or 
any such things, should ever be esteemed by the people as of like 
authority with the Scriptures. The same objection would apply 
to sermons and hymns, at least as strongly as to homilies. It is 
not possible, in any ordinary state of the Church, that all sermons 
should be, not only extempore effusions, but uttered by direct in- 
spiration of the Spirit. We must therefore esteem them as merely 
human compositions. And, though special blessing may be ex- 
pected on the teaching of faithful ministers of Christ; yet it is 
difficult to see what there is to raise their written or precomposed 
discourses to an eminence above the writings of martyred bishops, 
such as Cranmer and his fellows. ‘The lawfulness therefore of the 
putting forth of the Homilies seems unquestionable. 


1 See above, p. 299. 2 Art. VI. sect. 111. No. 11. p. 188. 


ARTICLE XXXVI. 


ines 


Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. 


Tue Book of Consecration of Archbish- 
ops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests 
and Deacons, lately set forth in the time 
of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at 
the same time by authority of Parliament, 
doth contain all things necessary to such 
Consecration and Ordering: neither hath 
it anything, that of itself is superstitious 
and ungodly. And therefore whosoever 
are consecrated or ordered according to 
the Rites of that Book, since the second 
year of the forenamed King Hdward unto 
this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated 
or ordered according to the same Rites ; 
we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, 


De Episcoporum et Ministrorum Conse- 


cratione. 


LIBELLUS de consecratione Archi-episco- 
porum, et Episcoporum, et de ordinatione 
Presbyterorum et Diaconorum, editus 
nuper temporibus Edwardi VI. et author- 
itate Parliamenti illis ipsis temporibus 
confirmatus, omnia ad ejusmodi consecra- 
tionem, et ordinationem necessaria con- 
tinet, et nihil habet, quod ex se sit, aut 
superstitiosum, aut impium : itaque qui- 
cunque juxta ritus illius libri consecrati, 
aut ordinati sunt, ab anno secundo pre- 
dicti regis Edwardi, usque ad hoc tem- 
pus, aut ordinabuntur, rite, atque ordine, 
atque legitime statuimus esse et fore con- 
secratos et ordinatos. 


and lawfully consecrated and ordered. 





[The only change, in the American revision, is the omission of the references to 
the time of Edward the Sixth, and the insertion of a reference to the General Con- 
vention of 1792, by which the Ordinal was set forth. One change was, however, 
made in the Ordinal itself, of which something must be said; since the alteration 
of the age requisite for the Diaconate, — which only recurs to the provisions of 
the period antecedent to 1662,— and the local adaptations of promises and oaths, 
require no special consideration. 

In the Proposep Book, the English Ordinal was accepted, with a proviso omit- 
ting “‘any oaths inconsistent with the American Revolution.” 

Bishop White says, that “the alterations of the Ordinal were prepared by the 
Bishops; ” and adds, “there was no material difference of opinion, except in 
regard to the words used by the Bishop at the ordination of Priests.” Bishop 
Seabury was urgent for retaining the words in the English Ordinal, though he 
finally consented to the insertion of the alternative form. Bishops White, Provoost, 
and Madison appear to have been disposed to omit the words, though they also 
agreed to the alternative. Indeed, it is believed that Bishop White proposed it. 

Some, doubtless, may object to the alternative form as insufficient. To such 
persons it is quite enough to reply that no special form of words has ever been con- 
sidered requisite, as accompanying the imposition of hands. Others will fault the 
first form, as savouring of Romish superstition. Let such remember that the words 
objected to are the very words used by our Lord in commissioning His Apostles ; 
that unless they involved Romish superstition in His using, they need not in ours ; 
that to give up all Scripture which the Roman Church has corrupted is something 
worse than folly ; and that the retention and use of our Lord’s words in the Ordi- 
nal is, when rightly viewed, the strongest possible protest against such corruption. 
—J. W.) 

99 


786 OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. [Arr. XXXVI. 


= area the Liturgy of the Church was undergoing a revision 
in the reign of Edward VI., it was obviously desirable 
that the Ordinal should be revised too. Accordingly, a. ἢ. 1549, 
an act of Parliament was passed to appoint six prelates and six 
other learned men, to devise a form of making and consecrating 
archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons, and other ministers.1 The 
Ordinal, drawn up by these divines, was in use till 1552; and six 
bishops were consecrated by means of it. 

According to the forms in the Ancient Roman Pontificals, 
those who were ordained priests had their hands anointed, the 
vessels of the Eucharist were delivered to them, and authority was 
given them to offer sacrifice. The new Ordinal omitted the Chrism, 
and all mention of offering sacrifices, but retained the custom of 
delivering ‘‘ the chalice or cup with the bread.” 2 

In the year 1552, the Second Service Book of Edward VI. 
came forth ; and with it a still further revision of the Ordinal. In 
the latter, the porrection of the chalice.and paten was omitted. ἡ 
The form of ordination was nearly as in our present services ; 
except that in the prayer of ordination of priests it was only said, 
“ Receive thou the Holy Ghost,” without adding, “ for the office 
of a priest,” &c.; and in the prayer of consecration of bishops, it 
was said, “ Take the Holy Ghost,”’ without the words, “for the 
office and work of a bishop,” &c. 

On the accession of Queen Mary, the new Ordinal was imme- 
diately suppressed. The orders conferred in the late reign, and 
with the use of the reformed Ordinal, were not declared invalid ; 
but those who had been so ordained, were to be reconciled, and 
the deficiencies supplied, such as unction, porrection of the 
chalice,® &e. 

In the reign of Elizabeth the reformed Ordinal was again 
restored, and in its use were consecrated Parker, the primate, and 
other bishops of the reformed Church. In confirmation of its 
authority, the Convocation of 1562 inserted this present Article 
among the XXXIX., in place of the XXXVth Article of 1552, 
which was more general, and concerned the whole Prayer Book, 
this being restricted to the Ordination Services. It was farther 
enforced by Act of Parliament, a. p. 1566; and the Article of 
1562 was confirmed in 1571. On the accession of Charles II. and 

1 Heylyn, pig ἀκα ἀρ τας ps2 ὃ μας τὺ Hist. Ref. History of Queen 


3 ies of BE T. Parker So- Mary, p. 86 
ciety, p. 179. oe 


Art. XXXVI] OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. 787 


the restoration of Episcopacy, which had been abolished during 
the Commonwealth, the ordination services, being restored, were, 
however, subjected to.a review, and reduced to their present form, 
The most important additions were the insertion, in the prayer of 
ordination of priests, after the words “Receive thou the Holy 
Ghost,” of the words “for the office and work, of a priest in the 
Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our 
hands ;” and a like change in the prayer of consecration of bishops ; 
so that the office of a bishop is distinctly expressed, whereas at 
first the words were general, and as applicable to a priest as to a 
bishop. 

The Preface, which is assigned to Cranmer, was the same in 
the first reformed Ordinal as it is in the present Ordination Ser- 
vice in our Prayer Books. 

The object of this Article is to meet objections to the validity 
and propriety of ordinations conferred in the use of this Ordinal, 
The objections are of two kinds: I. That the Ordinal lacks some 
essential ceremonies. II. That it has some superstitious forms and 
expressions. 


I. The first objection comes from the Romanists. 

1. It is urged, that our bishops do not confer the chrism, nor 
offer the sacred vessels, nor more especially give the power of sac- 
rificing ; therefore none can be truly ordained by them to the Chris- 
tian priesthood. 

To this we answer, first, that Scripture gives no authority for all 
these forms. All that we read of there, is laying on of hands with 
prayer. Secondly, we say that we find no authority for such 
forms in the customs of the primitive Church. Gregory Nazian- 
zen? indeed speaks of unction, but he means the unction of the 
Holy Ghost. The earliest specimen we have of a form of ordina- 
tion is in the VIIIth book of the Apostolical Constitutions, c. 16, 
which is as follows. 

“When thou ordainest a presbyter, O bishop, place thy hand 
on his head, the presbytery standing with thee, and also the dea- 


1 The question concerning the un- 
broken succession of our Bishops might 
naturally occur to us here. But it does 
not properly come under consideration in 
this or any other of the xxxrx. Articles. 
The student may consult Courayer, De- 
fe of English Ordinations ; Bramhall, 

rotestants’ Ordinations Defended; Ma- 
son’s Vindicie Ecclesie Anglicane. See 
also Palmer, Origines Liturgice, 11. ch. 


x11.; On the Church, part vi. ch. x. ; 
Harington’s Succession of Bishops in the 
English Church. ; 

[The student may profitably read Dr. 
Evan’s excellent Hssay on Anglican Ordi- 
nations, and Dr. Oldknow’s small, but 
big tract on the same subject. — 


2 Orat. v. Tom. τ. p. 136. 


788 OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. [Anr. XXXVL 


cons; and pray thus: O Lord, Almighty, our God, who hast cre- 
ated all things by Jesus Christ, and by Him providest for all, in 
whom is the power of providing in various ways. Now therefore, 
O God, Thou providest for immortals by preservation, for mortals 
_ by succession, for the soul by care of laws, for the body by supply 
of necessity. Do thou, therefore, now look upon Thy holy Church, 
increase it, and multiply those who preside over it; and give power 
that they may labour in word and work to the edification of Thy 
people. Do thou also look now upon this Thy ‘servant, who, by 
suffrage and judgment of all the clergy, is chosen into the presby- 
‘tery ; and fill him with the Spirit of grace and counsel, that he 
may aid and govern Thy people with a pure mind ; in like manner 
as Thou hadst respect to Thine elect people, and as Thou com- 
mandest Moses to choose elders whom Thou filledst with Thy 
Spirit. And now, O Lord, make good this, preserving in us an un- 
failing Spirit of Thy grace, that he, being filled with healing powers, 
and instructive discourse, may with meekness teach Thy people, 
and serve Thee sincerely with a pure mind and willing soul, and 
may perform the blameless sacred rites for Thy people. Through 
Thy Christ, with whom to Thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory, 
honour, and reverence forever. Amen.” 

This is the whole form of ordaining priests given in the Apostol- 
ical Constitutions. The words in Italics are the only words which 
can refer to sacrifice or Sacraments ; and they are certainly as gen- 
eral as those in our own Ordinal, “ Be thou a faithful dispenser of 
the word of God and of His holy Sacraments.” The words in the 
Roman Pontifical, “* Receive thou power to offer sacrifices to God, 
and to celebrate the mass for the quick and the dead,” were not 
in any ancient form of consecration. Morinus, as cited by Bishop 
Burnet, acknowledges that he could not find any such words for 
the first 900 years.? The Greek Church merely prays God to 
grant to the newly ordained presbyter, ‘‘ that he may stand blame- 
less at Thy altar, may preach the gospel of Thy Salvation, offer to 
Thee gifts and spiritual sacrifices, and renew Thy people by the 
laver of regeneration.” ® This again is perfectly general ; and the 
earlier we go, the simpler we find all the forms of ordination, in all 
parts of the world. ‘ Not a father, not a council, not one ancient 
author at any time mentions the delivery of the paten or chalice, 
or the formal words used by the Church of Rome, even when they 

1 ῦ ΐ , 8 
μαελήν τὴ Mesh Movers SHOWS gg Waloot's English Ordinal, p 260; δ 


urnet, Vindication of English Orders, 
p- ‘%, Bingham, 11, xix. 17. 


Arr. XXXVI] OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. 789 


describe the ordination of their days, and where this could not 
have been omitted, if it had been essential.” 1 This is surely proof 
enough that the omissions complained of are not sufficient to invali- 
date all the orders of the Church. 

2. It has also been objected, that the bishops consecrated accord- 
ing to the Ordinal of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, could not have 
been rightly consecrated, because the words of consecration were 
only, ‘ Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the 
grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands: for God 
hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love and 
soberness.” Here is nothing which might not apply to a priest or 
deacon, as well as to a bishop. 

But we may reply, that the whole service concerns bishops, not 
priests and deacons; and that, if the words, “for the office of a 
bishop,” ἄς. afterwards inserted, were not at first added, it is quite 
evident that they were sufficiently implied. Everybody must have 
felt that it was episcopal consecration which was conferred. The 
form of ordination does not consist merely in the prayer of conse- 
cration. The whole service forms part of it. And, moreover, 
even in the Roman Pontifical, the words which accompany the im- 
position of hands are simply, “ Receive the Holy Ghost ;” and the 
prayer, which follows, does not directly mention the office of a 
bishop.? 


II. Another objection proceeds from a very different quarter. 
The Puritans, and many well-meaning Christians since them, have 
much stumbled at our using those memorable words of our Lord 
and Saviour Christ, “ Receive the Holy Ghost . . . . Whose sins 
thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost re- 
tain, they are retained.” The objection is of this nature. 


1. The power of remitting and retaining sins was miraculous, 
and confined to the Apostles, and so not to be expected by other 
ministers. 


2. Man cannot bestow God’s Spirit, and it is profane to claim the 
power to do so. 


It is remarkable, that the reformers who rejected as superstitious 
some mere ceremonies, such as delivering the paten and chalice, 


1 Bramhall, Protestants’ Ordinations De- useful information, may be found in Wal- 
fended, Works, Anglo-Cath. Library, v.p. cott, On the English Ordinal, ch. v1. 
216. Several ancient forms, and much 2 Palmer, On the Church, pt. v1. ch. x. 

Vol. 11. p. 460. 


790 


and the anointing of the hands, should yet have retained this form 
of words, which to many seems nothing short of blasphemy. Was 
it that the reformers had a deeper insight into Scripture than those 
who now object to their proceedings ? 


OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. [Arr. XXXVI 


1. Under Art. XX XIII. I have already considered at length the 
question concerning the remitting and retaining sins. There it has 
been shown that such power was not miraculous,-nor peculiar to 
the Apostles. A power of that higher kind πε ον was given to 
mere man. The only authority which our blessed Lord thus con- 
veyed to His first ministers was, more solemnly than before, au- 
thority to bind and to loose, — that which is elsewhere called the 
power of the keys, — so that ministerially they had the keys of the 
Church or kingdom, to admit men to it by preaching and baptism, 
to exclude men from it by excommunication, to restore them to it 
again by absolution. The assurance given them is, that their acts, 
as Christ’s ministers in all these respects, shall be ratified in Heaven. 
It has been shown moreover, that this power of the keys is a por- 
tion of the Church’s birthright. It is committed to the Church as 
a body, and more particularly to her bishops and presbyters. Hence 
every bishop, having authority to ordain, has also authority to de- 
clare that the power of the keys is committed to the person or- 
dained by him. And no more is meant by these solemn words in 
our ordination service, than that, as Christ has left to the presby- 
tery the right of ministering His Sacraments, and of excluding 
from His Sacraments ; so the newly ordered presbyter now receives 
by Christ’s own ordinance that right, —a divine commission to 
minister, and at the same time a divine commission duly to exercise 
the authority of excluding the unworthy, and admitting again the 
penitent sinner.! 

2. On the words, ‘ Receive thou the Holy Ghost,” we may ob- 
serve, that, as the power to remit and retain sins was not a personal 
and miraculous power conferred on the Apostles, so neither was the 
gift of: the Spirit then breathed upon them the personally sanctify- 


11 have not fully entered into the 
question of the efficacy of absolution, 
when pronounced on a repenting sinner. 
That it may restore to Church commun- 
ion, none can doubt. But many, in our 
day, question, or rather deny, that it can 
be accompanied with any spiritual grace. 
The whole subject of ministerial blessing 
and absolution seems to be explained by 
the words of our Lord (Luke x. 5, 6): 
“Into whatsoever house ye enter, first 
say, Peace be to this house. And ifthe 


son of peace be there, your peace shall 
rest upon it; if not, it shall turn to you 
again.” Here the blessing of the minis- 
ter was to be accompanied by blessing 
from above, if the recipient was rightly 
disposed for blessing. But if the recip- 
ient was unbelieving and impenitent, the 
blessing could not reach his heart; but 
yet the minister would himself have 
comfort from having acted on his com- 
mission, and having sought to convey 
comfort to others. 


ArT. XXXVI.] OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. 791 


ing influence, nor yet the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. We 
cannot doubt that they had long ago received the sanctifying grace 
of God in their hearts, and so the ordinary operations of the Third 
Person of the Blessed Trinity. And the miraculous baptism of 
the Spirit, which gave them powers peculiar to the Apostolic age, 
they did not receive until the day of Pentecost. Hence, this be- 
stowal of the Spirit in the twentieth chapter of St. John was nei- 
ther the one nor the other of these. What then must it have been ? 
Evidently the ordaining grace of God. All ministerial authority 
has ever been believed to proceed from the Holy Ghost. Ministry, 
the right to minister, is one of the charismata of the Spirit. That 
charisma our Lord then for the first time fully bestowed upon His 
Church. But the same charisma was afterwards given “ by the 
laying on of the Apostle’s hands (2 Tim. i. 6), and, ‘ with the lay- 
ing on of the hands of the presbytery ” (1 Tim. iv. 14). Not that 
the Apostles or their successors could from themselves send forth 
the Spirit of God, or the gifts of the Spirit; but that, as our Lord 
had appointed ordination to be the means of receiving the grace of 
ordination, so the Church in undoubting faith believes, that, when- 
soever ordination is rightly ministered, the proper gift of orders 
flows down direct from the ordaining Spirit ; not to sanctify the in- 
dividual personally, but to constitute him truly a minister of Christ, 
and to make his ministry acceptable to God. Hence, when the 
bishop’s hand is laid on the head of him whom he ordains, we doubt 
not that the charisma of God’s Spirit is given, ‘for the office and 
work of a priest in the Church of God.” The difference between 
such an ordination and our Lord’s ordaining of His first ministers 
recorded in St. John chap. xx. is this. In the latter case, Christ 
Himself, to whom the Spirit is given without measure, gave of that 
Spirit authoritatively to His disciples ; and so, in giving, He breathed 
on them, as showing that the Spirit proceeded from Him. But in 
the other case, our bishops presume not to breathe, nor did the 
Apostles before them, for they know that ordaining grace comes not 
from them, but from Christ, whose ministers they are ; and so they 
simply, according to all Scriptural authority, use the outward rite 
of laying on of hands, in use of which they believe a blessing will 
assuredly come down from above.! That blessing is the gift of the 
Spirit of God, for the office and work of a priest. __ 

And thus we conclude, that, as the Ordinal lacks nothing essen- 
tial to the due administering of orders in the Church, so does it | 
not contain anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. 

1 See Hooker, Bk. v. 77, 78. 


ARTICLE XXXVIL. 


«---- 


Of the Civil Magistrates. 


Tue Queen’s Majesty hath the chief 
power in this Realm of England, and 
other her Dominions, unto whom the 
chief Government of all Estates of this 
Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or 
Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is 
not, nor ought to be, subject to any for- 
eign Jurisdiction. 

Where we attribute to the Queen’s 
Majesty the chief government, by which 
Titles we understand the minds of some 
slanderous folks to be offended ; we give 
not to our Princes the ministering either 
of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the 
which thing the injunctions also lately 
set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do 
most plainly testify; but that only pre- 
rogative, which we see to have been given 
always to all godly Princes in Holy Scrip- 
tures by God himself; that is, that they 
should rule all states and degrees com- 
mitted to their charge by God, whether 
they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and 
restrain with the civil sword the stubborn 
and evil-doers. 

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdic- 
tion in this Realm of England. 

The Laws of the Realm may punish 
Christian men with death, for heinous 
and grievous offences. 

It is lawful for Christian men, at the 
commandment of the Magistrate, to wear 
weapons and serve in the wars. 


De Civilibus Magistratibus, 


Reera Majestas in hoc Angliew regno, 
ac ceteris ejus dominiis, summam habet 
potestatem, ad quam, omnium statuum 
hujus regni, sive illi ecclesiastici sint, 
sive civiles, in omnibus causis, suprema 
gubernatio pertinet, et nulli extern ju- 
risdictioni est subjecta, nec esse debet. 

Cum Regie Majestati summam guber- 
nationem tribuimus, quibus titulis intel- 
ligimus, animos quorundam calumniato- 
rum offendi, non damus regibus nostris, 
aut verbi Dei, aut Sacramentorum ad- 
ministrationem, quod etiam injunctiones 
ab Elizabetha Regina nostra, nuper edite, 
apertissime testantur. Sed eam tantum 
prerogativam, quam in sacris Scriptu- 
ris a Deo ipso;,omnibus piis Principibus, 


-videmus semper fuisse attributam, hoc 


est, ut omnes status, atque ordines fidei 
suz a Deo commissos, sive {ΠῚ ecclesias- 
tici sint, sive civiles, in officio contineant, 
et contumaces ac delinquentes, gladio 
civili coerceant. 

Romanus pontifex nullam habet juris- 
dictionem in hoc regno Angliz. 

Leges Regni possunt Christianos prop- 
ter capitalia, et gravia crimina, morte 

unire. 

Christianis licet, ex mandato magistra- 
tus, arma portare, et justa bella adminis- 
trare. 





[The American Article reads : — 


“Art, XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates. 


“ The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, 
in all things temporal ; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold 
it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful 
obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted.” 

The writer ventures to consider it unfortunate that the two declarations concern- 
ing “capital punishment,” and the propriety of Christians bearing arms, were 
omitted. The reasons for the omission, though he can conjecture what they were, 
he does not feel sufficiently sure of, to state. —J. W.] 


— 


Sec. I.] } OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 793 


Sxcrion I.—THE SUPREMACY OF THE CROWN. 


ΤῈΣ present Article concerns one of the most involved and diffi- 

cult questions that have agitated Christian men: the question, 
namely, of the due proportions and proper relation between the 
civil and ecclesiastical powers in a Christian Commonwealth. The 
whole course of Church History, from the time of Constantine to 
the present, seems to have been striving to unravel the difficulty 
and solve the problem. Perhaps it never will be solved, until 
the coming of the Son of Man, when there shall be no king but 
Christ, and all nations, peoples, and languages, shall bow down 
before Him. 

Without pretending then to clear up all that is dark in such ἃ 
question, we may by a hasty survey of past events be enabled to 
place ourselves in such a position, that the mists of prejudice, 
whether religious or political, may not blind us to the perception of 
that light which Providence has given to guide us. 

For the first three hundred years, the spiritual kingdom of Christ 
was on earth, having no relation to any earthly kingdom. The 
kingdoms of this world, instead of fostering, persecuted it. There 
was a direct antagonism between the Church and the world; and 
the external development of that antagonism was plainly visible 
in the opposing organization of Church and State. Christians 
indeed were from the first obedient subjects, wherever obedience 
was not incompatible with religion. They even marched in the 
armies of the heathen emperors, prayed for them in their public 
liturgies, and in persecution took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, 
resisting none but those commands which could be obeyed only by 
disobedience to God. But the whole Christian Church, as far as 
possible, shrank within itself from the polluting atmosphere of hea- 
thenism and heathen morality. The Apostle had condemned the 
Corinthians for going to law before the unbelievers (1 Cor. vi. 1), 
and had encouraged them to erect private tribunals among them- 
selves, for the decision of disputes, which would inevitably arise. 
The result was naturally, that the courts of the bishop became the 
ordinary courts of judicature, when Christians impleaded Chris- 
tians. The rulers of the Church were looked up to with that kind 
of veneration which we call loyalty; whilst obedience to the em- 

11 Cor. vi. 4. Some consider the to mean persons destitute of any public 


word ἐξουϑενημένους, used in this verse, authority in the state. 
100 


794 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


peror was the result of no natural enthusiasm, but of a principle of 
self-denying, self-sacrificing obligation. 

The accession of Constantine to the throne of Augustus, his 
conversion to Christianity, and his removal of the seat of empire 
to Byzantium, produced a remarkable revolution. Christians fondly 
hoped, that the kingdoms of this world had become the kingdoms 
of our God and of His Christ. They naturally recognized the 
duty of Christian princes to protect the faith of the Gospel. They 
joyfully embraced the newly opened course for the progress of the 
Gospel. They reasonably were thankful for the promised freedom 
to worship God according to their consciences; and alas! it is to 
be feared, that they were not averse to using the civil authority to 
put down the pride of the now fast increasing heresy of Arius. Con- 
stantine, on his part, whether sincere or politic in his adoption of 
the Gospel, could not be ignorant of the vast machinery which his 
connection with the Church might put into his hands. In heathen 
times, the supreme ruler at Rome was also the supreme adminis- 
trator of the affairs of religion. There was a sacredness attached 
to him, however vile his personal character. The Roman Emperor 
even became the Pontifex Maximus.! And).although Constantine 
found it not possible to assume a sacerdotal function in the Chris- 
tian Church, he yet claimed a peculiar supremacy; which was 
sufficiently undefined to be inoffensive to others, and yet satisfac- 
tory to himself. ‘ You,” said he to the Christian prelates, ‘ are 
bishops of the things within the Church; but I am constituted by 
God bishop of those which are without.” ? The words were per- 
haps originally spoken in jest, but time led him to apply them in 
earnest. 

From this period the Church, though never endowed by the 
State, received a full and ample protection for the revenues which 
it might acquire. The Christian princes ever considered them- 
selves as its protectors, and in some sense as its governors. There 
is good reason to think, that the power, which they so exercised, 
was often by no means paternal, but as tyrannical and arbitrary as 
was their more secular administration. The bishops indeed main- 
tained the exclusive right of the clergy to minister in sacred things ; 
and the emperors readily admitted that to the clergy alone such 
functions appertained.? Moreover, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
of bishops and patriarchs was carefully preserved to them. Patri- 


1 Gibbon, ch. xx. Theodosius to enter the chancel (The 
2 Euseb. Vit. Constant. rv. 24. odoret, l. v. c. 18) is well known. 
® The story of St. Ambrose forbidding 


Sec. 1.1 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 795 


archs were permitted to call provincial, and bishops to call diocesan 
synods ; but a synod of the universal Church was never called but 
by the Emperor himself. Though the decrees of the councils were 
made by the bishops, yet the Emperor thought himself justified in 
enforcing them by his own temporal power. Thus Arius, con- 
demned at Nice, was banished by Constantine ; and there is too 
good reason to fear that court influence was unsparingly used to 
intimidate the members of a synod into voting with the Emperor, 
or absenting themselves altogether. Eusebius assigns to Constan- 
tine a principle, which was probably never admitted by the Church 
at large, but which may have materially influenced him in his own 
conduct ; namely, that as a kind of universal bishop, he assembled 
councils of the ministers of God.} 

From this time, then, the Church and the State were no longer 
in the position of a persecuting power and a patient victim. They 
no longer represented, respectively, the principle of good and the 
principle of evil. The good of the one had penetrated the other ; 
and it may be feared, that there was something of reciprocal 
interchange. They had, however, entered into an alliance ; but 
still, more or less, the Christianized state was sure to retain some 
of the worldly elements which characterized it when heathen; and 
there was still a struggle, though less conspicuous, between the 
Church in the Church and the world in the State. In the East, 
the power of the Emperor over the Church was the greater, because 
the East had become the seat of empire ; and there is little doubt, 
that the degeneracy of the Eastern Church had much connection 
with the influence of the court. Nay! the power of that court 
became at once apparent, when, on the adoption of heresy by 
the Emperor, the whole East seemed suddenly overspread with 
Arianism. 

There was a different state of things in the West; the result, 
it may be, in part, of the greater vigour of the Western bishops, 
but still more of the absence of the seat of government from Rome. 
The Church was no longer the same isolated, distinct body that it 
had been when the empire was heathen; and had it not been for 
the nucleus formed for it by the clergy, it might have been all 
dissipated in the midst of the half Ομ δου: people that were 
around it. But the clergy were still a substantive, tangible body; 
and, irrespective of any ambition of their own, it was almost essen- 
tial to the existence of the Church, that they should form them- 


1 Ola τις κοινὸς ἐπίσκοπος ἐκ Θεοῦ καϑι- συνεκρότει. ---- De Vit, Constantin. Lib. τ. ¢. 
στύμε»ος, συνόδους τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ λειτουργῶν 44. 


796 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL. 


selves into that kind of close corporation which had before em- 
braced the whole society of Christians. Besides which, as their 
sacred character brought them respect even in the eyes of their 
tyrants, as they had a prescriptive right to hold private tribunals 
for the settlement of their private differences, as their sacred 
buildings had conceded to them the right of sanctuary possessed of 
old by heathen temples; they had in their hands the power, not 
only of supporting religion, but also of evading, or at least limiting, 
both for themselves and their fellow-Christians, the tyrannical 
domination of the emperor: The subject has been so clearly and 
liberally set forth by an accomplished writer of the day, that we 
may well use his own words. “If it be right to condemn the 
fiscal tyranny of the Roman rulers, it can hardly be also right to 
condemn those sacerdotal claims, and those imperial concessions, 
by which the range of that tyranny was narrowed . . . The Church 
is arraigned as selfish and ambitious, because it formed itself into 
a vast clerical corporation, living under laws and usages peculiar 
to itself, and not acknowledging the jurisdiction of the temporal 
tribunals. That the Churchmen of the fourth century lived be- 
neath a ruthless despotism no one attempts to deny. That they 
opposed to it the only barrier by which the imperial tyranny could, 
in that age, be arrested in its course, is equally indisputable. If 
they had been laymen, they would have been celebrated as patriots 
by the very persons who, because they were priests, have denounced 
them as usurpers. If the bishops of the fourth century had lived 
under the republic, they would have been illustrious as tribunes of 
the people. If the Gracchi had been contemporaries of Theodosius, 
their names would have taken the place which Ambrose and Martin 
of Tours at present hold in ecclesiastical history. A brave resist- 
ance to despotic authority has surely no less title to our sympathy, 
if it proceeds from the episcopal throne, than if it be made amidst 
the tumults of the forum.” ὦ 

If this was true of the relation of the Church to the empire, 
it was certainly not less true as regards its condition under the 
several kingdoms which were formed by the Gothic barbarians 
out of the ruins of the empire. The feudal monarchies, whether 
in their earlier condition or in their more matured and full-grown 
despotism, were amongst the most lawless, oppressive, and tyran- 
nical forms of government that an unhappy people have ever 
groaned under. In those days when might was the only right, 
‘we may rejoice to know,” says the just-cited authority, “ that the 

1 Lectures on the History of France, by the Rt. Hon. Sir James Stephen, t. Ρ. 38. 


Src. 1] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 191 


early Church was the one great antagonist of the wrongs which 
were then done upon the earth, that she narrowed the range of 
fiscal tyranny, — that she mitigated the overwhelming poverty of 
the people, — that she promoted the accumulation of capital, — that 
she contributed to the restoration of agriculture, — that she balanced 
and held in check the imperial despotism, — that she revived within 
herself the remembrance and the use of the franchise of popular 
election, — and that the gloomy portraits which have been drawn of 
her internal or moral state, are the mere exaggerations of those 
who would render the Church responsible for the crimes with 
which it is her office to contend, and for the miseries which it 
is her high commission effectually, though gradually, to relieve.” ἢ 

The same may be said of much later times. The struggle 
between. the crown and the clergy was, in fact, often a struggle of 
‘religion against lawlessness, avarice, licentiousness, and tyranny. 
_ The clergy were the guardians not only of the Church, but of the 
people ; and one great secret of their increasing power was the 
conviction, even among their opponents, of the righteousness of 
their cause, and, among those whom they defended, of the bless- 
ings of their protection. 

But there was one important element at work, which we have 
now to take into account. From the earliest times, the Bishop of 
Rome was the most important prelate in the West. His see was 
in the imperial city. It claimed the chief of the Apostles as its 
founder. The Apostolic sees were everywhere respected; and 
Rome was the only Church in Europe certainly Apostolic. So 
early as the third century, St. Cyprian had urged the priority of 
St. Peter, and the precedence of the Bishops of Rome, as an argu- 
ment for the unity of the Church. To all Europe Rome was, on 
every account, a centre; and the ambition of its prelates never 
ceased to turn such advantage to their own account. There were 
few Churches which owed not some obligation to the Roman 
Church ; if not as founding, yet as strengthening and enlightening 
them. There were a thousand causes tending to give additional 
importance to the Popes. The emperors found it politic to court 
them. ‘The patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch sought defence 
from them against the overwhelming power of Constantinople in 
the East. The kings of distant nations asked for missionaries 
from them, to instruct their people more perfectly in the Gospel. 
The removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople, whilst it 
raised the see of that city to the position of eminence next to that 


1 Lectures on the History of France, by the Rt. Hon Sir James Stephen, 1. p. 37 


798 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


of Rome, yet rather favoured the increase of the power of the 
latter. When there was an emperor at Rome, the Pope was con- 
trolled by a superior ; but when the emperor was at a distance, the 
Christian bishop became the most important person in the imperial 
city. By degrees a primacy, which might have been reasonable, 
became a supremacy which was pernicious. The whole constitution 
of Europe favoured such an arrangement. As all Europe looked 
to Rome as its civil centre, so Christian Europe looked to Rome 
as its ecclesiastical centre. Then, the power of the Pope was a 
happy counterpoise for the power of the sovereign. In the Middle 
Ages the barons owed fealty to their feudal suzerain; and the 
bishops and clergy owed a spiritual fealty to their ecclesiastical 
head. The Church, as an united body, was disposed to look to 
one visible centre, one visible head. Evil as its consequences have 
been, still in these dark and troubled times such union and sub- 
mission on the one hand, and a corresponding aid and protection 
on the other, may possibly have been the means of keeping the 
Church from utter disintegration, by protecting it from that law- 
less and arbitrary feudalism which might otherwise have swept 
away both Church and religion from the earth. 

But the authority, thus fostered and matured, now overtopped 
all other authorities, and grew into a tyranny as intolerable as 
that against which it once promised to be a bulwark. Like a dic- 
tatorship after a republic, it was more absolute than legitimate 
monarchy. The power of the Pope was not merely spiritual, but 
political! In the first place, the clergy were not esteemed as 
subjects of the crown, in the country in which they lived. The 
Pope was their virtual sovereign; to him they owed a supreme 
allegiance. All causes concerning them were referred to spiritual 
tribunals, and there was a final appeal to the jurisdiction of Rome 
itself. Bishops felt the grievance of such a power, when the Pope 
at his pleasure exempted monasteries from their control, and 
claimed all benefices, as of right vested in the supreme pontiff, and 
not held legally without his permission. But kings felt it still 
more; when a large portion of their subjects were withdrawn 
from their authority ; when a large number of causes, under the 


1 Bellarmine calls it a heresy not to 
allow to the Pope power over sovereign 
princes in temporal affairs. And Baro- 
nius says, “They are branded as here- 
tics, who take from the Church of Rome 
and the see of St. Peter one of the two 
swords, and allow only the spiritual.” 
This heresy Baronius calls the ‘‘ Heresy 
of the Politici’ Bellarmin. De Rom. 


Pont. ν. 1; Baronius, Anno 1058, ὃ 14; 
Anno 1078, § 18, quoted by Barrow, On 
the Pope’s Supremacy, p. 17. Bellarmine 
states it as the general Catholic senti- 
ment, that popes have not directly tempo- 
ral authority, but that indirecily, by vir- 
tue of their spiritual authority, they have 
temporal authority. 


Sec. I.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 799 


name of ecclesiastical, were withdrawn from their courts; when 
taxes were levied in the name of Peter’s pence upon their king- 
doms ; when their clergy and many of their people could be armed 
against them by a foreign influence ; and, worst of all, when the 
right was asserted of putting their whole country under an inter- 
dict, nay, even of either granting to them new kingdoms,} or of 
deposing them from their thrones, and releasing their people from 
their oaths of allegiance.? 

The Reformation was a reaction from this state of things, as well 
as a throwing off of internal corruption of faith. It was viewed in- 
deed by different persons according to their respective feelings and 
interests. The prince desired it, for the sake of regaining his for- 
mer, and more than his former authority. The nobles desired it, 
that they might fatten on the spoils of the Church. The reforming 
prelates and clergy desired it, that they might be freed from the 
power of Rome, and have liberty to order God’s worship aright. 
The people desired it, that they might have freedom of conscience 
and purity of faith. As the fathers had hailed the conversion of 
an emperor, to free them from heathen tyranny; as clergy and 
people in the Middle Ages had sought a refuge at Rome from the 
exactions of their domestic oppressors ; so now the reformers hoped 
that the throne would prove to them a protection from the tyranny 
of the Vatican. We must plead thisin excuse for what is the foul- 
est stain on the Reformation, namely, the undue servility of the 
ecclesiastical leaders of it to the vicious and tyrannical princes that 
sided with it. : 

In England, Henry, whose love for reformation was love only 
for his own power, passions, and interests, wished not to free relig- 
ion from restraint, but to transfer to himself the power formerly 
wielded by the Pope. And we may partly account for the oppo- 
sition to reform among the commonalty, who had originally sighed 
for it, by remembering that they discovered now a prospect for 
themselves of the same tyranny here in England which had here- 
tofore been as distant as Rome. Their desire for a restoration to a 
simpler worship and a purer faith had been met by a rapacious seiz- 
ing of those ecclesiastical revenues from which so much benefit had 


1 As Alexander III. gave Henry II. a 
grant of Ireland. 

2 As Gregory VII. did to the Emperor 
Henry IV. a. p. 1076; Alexander III. 
did to the Emperor Frederick I. a. pb. 
1168; Innocent III. did to the Emperor 
Otho IV. a. p. 1210; and to our own 
King John, a.p. 1212. Thomas Aqui- 
nas, the great school authority, lays it 


down as a principle, that the subjects of 
excommunicate princes are released from 
their allegiance. ‘‘ Quum quis per sen 
tentiam denunciatur propter apostasiam, 
excommunicatus, ipso facto ejus subditi 
adominio et juramento fidelitatis ejus 
liberati sunt.”” — Tom. 11. Secund. qu. 
12, Art. τι. ; Barrow, On the Pope’s Su- 


premacy, p. 8. 


800 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


ever been derived to the poor and to the oppressed; and by a 
transference of a power over their consciences from one whom they 
did look up to as a Christian prelate, to an avaricious and blood- 
stained sovereign. 

However, notwithstanding the difficulties of the case, and the evil 
passions of some, the problem was working itself out. The Pope’s 
power was happily abolished. Appeals to Rome were no longer 
legal. Ecclesiastical as well as civil causes were heard in the 
king’s name. The acts of Convocation in the reforming of the 
doctrines and formularies were sanctioned by the crown. The 
clergy were all made amenable to the civil tribunals, and became 
in fact subjects of’ the throne of England, not of the throne of St. 
Peter. 

But in what sense had the king thus become the head or chief 
governor of the Church? The very principle of the Reformation 
may be said to have been, that there is no Supreme Head of Christ’s 
Church but Christ Himself. Yet by the acts 26 Henry VIII. c. 
1, and 35 Henry VIII. c. 3, the king is declared in express terms, 
“the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England.” 
And in the following reign, the Article of 1552 is worded in 
accordance with such acts, ‘* The King of England is supreme 
head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and 
Ireland.” 1 

Many thoughtful men, not disinclined to the Reformation, were 
much offended at this apparent assumption of spiritual authority 
over Christ’s flock by a temporal sovereign. Bishop Fisher and 
Sir Thomas More went to the scaffold, rather than acknowledge it. 
But among those who submitted to the authority, there was a 
diversity of feeling as to the sense attached to it. Henry himself 
doubtless wished to be both pope and king. The Parliament prob- 
ably accepted the title in no very definite signification ; but re- 
joiced in any advance of the lay power to preéminence over the 
clergy. The Convocation thought it doubtfully consistent with 
their allegiance to God, and recognized the title only ‘so far as by 
the law of Christ they could.” ? 

What was the opinion of the leading divines of the Reformation 
on this subject, and especially of the Archbishop, must be an in- 
teresting question. I have been surprised to find so little about it 
in the writings of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. Cranmer had 


1 “ Rex Anglia est ———s caputin singularem protectorem et supremum 

terris, post Christum, Ecclesia Angli- Dominum, et, quantum per Christi legem 

cane et Hibernia.” licet, etiam supremum caput ipsius maj- 
2 “Keclesie et cleri Anglicani, cujus estatem recognoscimus.” 


Sec. 17 OF THE CIVIL: MAGISTRATES. 801 


evidently, at one time, a very extravagant notion of the sacredness 
of kings, as he had a very low view of the office of the ministry ; so 
that he even ventured a statement, that the royal power might make 
a priest.! But this sentiment he afterwards entirely abandoned. 
We may remark then, that he ever constantly affirmed that in all 
countries the king’s power is the highest power under God, to 
whom all men by God’s laws owe most loyalty and obedience ; 
and that he hath power and charge over all, as well bishops and 
priests as others.2. But the occasion on which he gave the fullest 
exposition of the meaning which he and his fellows attached to the 
supremacy, was in his examination before Brokes, just before. his 
death. Then he declared, that ‘*every king in his own realm is 
supreme head, and therefore that the king-of England is supreme 
head of the Church of Christ in England.” He admits that on 
this principle, ‘Nero was Peter’s head,” and “head of the 
Church ;” and that ‘the Turk is the head of the Church in 
Turkey.” ? ‘“ After this, Dr. Martin demanded of him, who was 
supreme head of the Church of England ? Marry, quoth my Lord of 
Canterbury, Christ is head of this member, as He is of the whole 
body of the universal Church. Why, quoth Dr. Martin, you made 
King Henry the Eighth supreme head of the Church. Yea, said 
the Archbishop, of all the people of England, as well ecclesiastical . 
as temporal. And not of the Church, said Martin. No, said He, 
for Christ is the only head of His Church, and of the faith and re- 
ligion of the same. The king is head and governor of his people, 
which are the visible Church. What! quoth Martin, you never 
durst tell the king so. Yes, that I durst, quoth he, and did. In 
the publication of his style, wherein he was named supreme head 
of the Church, there was never other thing meant.” 4 

Whether Cranmer durst or durst not tell the king thus, the king 
probably took it differently; and indeed it is pretty clear, that 
something more than the power of Nero, or of ‘the Turk,” over 
Christians in their dominions, was intended to be assigned to Chris- 
tian kings over their Christian subjects. Whatever too was meant 
by the publication of the style, “‘ Supreme head of the Church,” it 
caused offence to many besides those who were sure to take offence. 
Accordingly, when the Acts of Henry VIII. and Edw. VI. had been 
repealed by the Statute 1 Philip and Mary, c. 8, the title, ““ Su- 
preme head,” was never revived by authority, but was rejected by 

1 Answers to Questions on the Sacra- * See Cranmer’s Works, 1v. Appen- 
ments, A.D. 1540. See this subject con- dix, pp. 266, 308, 328, &c. 
sidered under Article xx111. 8 Works, tv. p. 98. 


* Cranmer’s Works, tv. pp. 116, 117. 
101 


802 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Artr. XXXVIL 


Elizabeth, and “Supreme governor” substituted in its place.’ 
The Statute 1 Eliz. c. 1, is an “act for restoring to the crown the 
ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, and 
abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same.” In this act 
all foreign jurisdiction is abolished, and the power of visiting and 
correcting ecclesiastical abuses is, by the authority of Parliament, 
annexed to the imperial crown of the realm. But the acts confer- 
ring the title of “* Head of the Church” (26 Henry VIII. ¢. 1, 35 
Henry VIII. c. 3) are not revived, and thenceforward ‘ govern- 
ment” is substituted for ‘ headship.” 2 ; 

In Elizabeth’s reign, the authorized formularies explain, to a 
considerable extent, the meaning attached at that time to the 
authority in question. First comes this article, the words of which 
should be carefully considered. It excludes all foreign domination, 
assigns to the sovereign the only supreme authority over all sorts 
of men, whether civil or ecclesiastical, but especially denies that 
sovereigns have any ministerial function in the Church, whether as 
regards the Sacraments or the word of God; but the power which 
they have is such as godly princes in Scripture had, —* to rule 
all estates and degrees, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, and re- 
strain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.” 

The Injunctions of Elizabeth, to which the Article refers, enjoin 
all ecclesiastics to observe the laws made for restoring to the crown 
the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, and abolishing 
all foreign authority. The queen’s power is declared to be “ the 
highest under God, to whom all men within the same realms 
and dominions by God’s law owe most loyalty and obedience.” ὃ 

In the reigu of James I. the Convocation agreed on the Canons 
of 1603. The second canon expressly affirms, that the “ king’s 
majesty hath the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the 
godly kings had among the Jews, and Christian emperors of the 
Primitive Church ;” and both the first and second canon speak of 
the laws, as having “restored to the crown of this kingdom the 
ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical.”” The XXX VIth 
Canon contains three articles, which are subscribed by all ministers 
at their ordination. The first is, I. “ That the king’s majesty, 


1 Jewel mentions the Queen's refusal ever.” — Collier, Church History, pt. 11. 
of the title of Head of the Church ina Bk. v1. 
etter to Bullinger, May 22, 1659: “ The 2 See a very learned pamphlet entitled 
ueen is unwilling to be addressed, The Papal Brief Considered, by Ral 
either by word of mouth, or in writ- Barnes, Esq. Rivingtons, 1850. Note, 
ing, as the Head of the Church of Eng- page 90. 
land. For she seriously maintains, that Sparrow’s Collection of Articles, Ὁ. 67. 
this honour is due to Christ alone,and See also p. 88. 
cannot belong to any human being what- 


Src. 11 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 808 


under God, is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all 
other his highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual — 
or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and that no foreign 
prince, person, prelate, or potentate hath, or ought to have any ju- 
risdiction, power, superiority, preéminence, or authority, ecclesias- 
tical or spiritual, within his majesty’s said realms, dominions, and 
countries.” 

These documents, then, which at present form the charter of 
union between Church and State, evidently assign to the sovereign 
no new functions. The principle enunciated by them is, that the 
sovereign is entitled to those ancient privileges which belonged, 
1, to devout princes in Scripture ; 2, to Christian emperors in prim- 
itive times ; 8, to the ancient sovereigns of England before the times 
of Papal domination. The very reference to Scriptural and prim- 
itive examples seems to be a demonstration of the justice of the 
claims ; for, if nothing is claimed beyond what Scripture warrants 
and the Catholic fathers allowed, the claim should seem to be both 
Scriptural and Catholic. Yet some important objections may be 
urged, which we must not neglect to consider. 

1. It is said that “godly princes in Scripture” must mean 
“ godly kings among the Jews.” Now the Jewish dispensation was 
utterly dissimilar from the Christian ; for the Jewish Church was 
national, the Christian Church is not national, but Catholic. Hence 
naturally among the Jews the king, as head of the nation, was 
supreme over the Church. But the Catholic Church acknowledges 
no local distinctions ; and to assign a national supremacy is to rend 
the Church of Christ into separate societies. Kings, as well as 
others, are but members of the one spiritual body, which meddles 
not with temporal distinctions, but holds all alike as rag and 
servants of Christ. 

To this we reply, that our kings, since at least the time of 
Elizabeth, have not an authority such as should separate one por- 
tion of the Church from the other. It is not our national distine- 
tions, but our doctrinal differences, which divide us from our fellow- 
Christians. Our sovereigns claim only those powers which were 
exercised by their predecessors, in times which Romanists must 
acknowledge to have been Catholic, but before the full-grown 
authority of the see of Rome. Gregory VII. was the original 
founder of that great authority, and it culminated under Innocent 
III. But we see not that the Church was less Catholic in the 
days of Alfred and Edward the Confessor, than in the reigns of the 
Plantagenets. If then we concede to our princes the influence of 


804 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


the Saxon monarchs, we shall not have destroyed the Catholicity 
of the Church, more than it was destroyed centuries before the 
Reformation. 

2. It is said again that the Jewish princes can be no examples 
for us, because, from the theocratic nature of the Jewish kingdom, 
there was a sacredness attaching to their office, as that of God’s 
special vicegerents, which cannot attach to ordinary rulers. Israel, 
as a theocracy, was a type of the Church ; and its kings were types 
of Christ. As the high priests foreshadowed His priestly office in 
His Church, so the kings foreshadowed His regal authority over 
His spiritual kingdom. But there is no vicegerent of Christ on 
earth ; no type now of His spiritual sovereignty. Hence earthly 
kings now cannot claim the position and privileges of the ancient 
Jewish kings. 

This is doubtless a very weighty argument, and is a just reply 
to some who would unduly magnify the royal authority in things 
ecclesiastical. But it has been observed in a former Article,! that 
the Jewish state may be considered in some respects as a model 
republic ; and that, notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances 
and special object of its institution, we may still derive lessons of 
political wisdom from the ordinances appointed by the All-wise for 
the government of His own chosen race. Now, in that govern- 
ment, He was pleased to conjoin the spiritual and secular elements, 
in such a manner that the king was to show a fatherly care for 
religion, yet not to intrude upon its sacred offices (see 1 Sam. xiii. 
8-14 ; 2 Chron. xix. 11, ὥς.) ; and we may humbly conclude, that 
what was ordained by heavenly wisdom then, cannot be wholly 
evil now.? Besides which, we see throughout Scripture that there 
is a sacredness in civil government. Kings are always said to hold 
their power of God, and to be especially under His protection and 
guidance. They are His ministers for good; and therefore to be 
esteemed by God’s people, as exercising in some degree God’s 
authority (see Prov. viii. 15; Dan. ii. 21, 837; Rom. xiii. 1-5; 1 
Pet. ii. 18, 17; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, &.).? 


1 Art. vir. See above, p. 214. of the ancient fathers, that “ omnis ani 


® The way in which kings and rulers 

am the Jews interfered in the affairs 

of religion may be seen from the follow- 

: Josh. xxiv. 26, 26; 1 

xv. 12; xxiii. 6; 2 Chron. viii. 

14, 16; xv. 8, 9; xvii. 9; xx. 8, 4; 
xxix. 8-5, 26; xxxiv. 31, 82. 

® Rom. xiii, 1; “Let every soul be 

subject to the higher powers.” Arch- 

bishop Laud thus sums up the consent 


every soul, comprehends all without ex- 
ception, all spiritual men, even the highest 
bishop ; Πᾶσι ταῦτα διατάττεται, καὶ ἱερεῦσι. 
οὐ Sica ista imperantur et sacer- 
dotibus et monachis .... Et poco: 
Etiamsi Apostolus sis, si evange si 
pheta, sive quisquis tandem fueris. — 

t. Chrysost. Hom. xxii1. in Rom. Sive 
est sacerdos, sive antistes. — Theodoret. 
Zn Rom, xiii. Si omnis anima est vestra. 


OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 805 


8. Another objection to the precedents claimed by the English 
monarchs is, that the influence of the Christian emperors, and the 
connection of religion with the state, which sprang up after the 
time of Constantine, were the very origin of evil and corruption in 
the Church. It was an unhallowed alliance between the Church 
and the world, and never had God’s blessing on it. 

It perhaps cannot be denied that the sunshine of worldly pros- 
perity has never been the most favourable condition for the devel- 
opment of Christian graces. When the Church could no longer 
say, “Silver and gold have I none,” it could no longer command 
the impotent man to “arise and walk.’’ Yet we cannot thence 
conclude, that the Church is ever to seek persecution, or to refuse 
such vantage-ground as God’s providence permits it to stand upon, 
To court or fawn upon the great is indeed most earnestly to be 
shunned. ‘The minister of God must reason before the governor, 
of ‘righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come ;”’ and, if 
possible, make the ungodly ruler “ tremble,” as much as the mean- 
est of the people. Yet St. Paul rejoiced to gain converts in Ceesar’s 
household (Phil. i. 18; iv. 22). And, as there seems no more prob- 
able way to Christianize a people than to Christianize their rulers, 
it is obviously desirable that the government of a country should 
be induced to support religion in it. And again, on the other 
hand, it is the plain duty of sovereigns and constituted authorities 
to maintain true religion in the land. Nations and rulers are as 
much responsible to God’s judgment as private individuals. Scerip- 
ture condemns ungodly rulers and ungodly nations, as much as 
ungodly individuals ; and praise is given to such sovereigns as fear 
God and honour His name. (See Psalm ii. 10. Jer. xviii. 7-10. 
Jonah passim.) National, as well as individual, mercies and 
judgments come from Him. Now, nations and their rulers can 
only show their piety to God in a public and national manner, by 
maintaining true religion and the public service of religion. More- 
over, it was prophesied concerning the Christian Church, that 
“kings should be her nursing fathers and queens her nursing 
mothers ” (Isai. xlix. 23); and it is difficult to know how they 
can be nurses to the Church, if it be forbidden her to have any 
connection with them.! 


Sec. I.] 


Quis vos excipit ex universitate? . 

Ipsi sunt qui vobis dicere solent, servatis 
vestre sedis honorem..... Sed Christus 
aliter et jussit et gessit, &c. — S. Bernard. 
Epist. 42 ad Henricum Senonensem Archie- 
piscopum. Et Theophylact. Zn Rom. xiii., 
where it is very observable that Theoph- 


ylact lived in the time of Pope Gregory 
VII., and St. Bernard after it; and yet 
this truth obtained then: and this was 
about the year 1130.” — Laud, Conference 
with Fisher, p. 170, note. Oxford, 1889, 
! The Eastern Church admits the su- 
premacy of the Crown, probably in a 


806 


If we once admit the propriety of a connection between the 
Church and the State, and at the same time deny the supremacy 
of the Pope, it seems almost to follow of necessity, that we should 
admit a supremacy of the sovereign. The sovereign must in that 
case hold some position in the Church; and it can only be the 
highest. It is not consistent with his sovereignty that he should 
have a superior in his own kingdom. But,'in considering the 
sovereign as chief ruler over all persons in all causes, ecclesiastical 
as well as civil, we must remember one or two particulars. “It 
may be, that two or three of our princes at the most (the greater 
part whereof were Roman Catholics) did style themselves, or gave 
others leave to style them, ‘ the Heads of the Church within their 
dominions.’ But no man can be so simple as to conceive, that 
they intended a spiritual headship, — to infuse the life and motion 
of grace into the hearts of the faithful; such an Head is Christ 
alone ; no, nor yet an ecclesiastical headship. We did never be- 
lieve that our kings, in their own persons, could exercise any act 
pertaining ether to order or jurisdiction; nothing can give that 
to another which it hath not itself. They meant only a civil or 
political head, as Saul is called * the head of the tribes of Israel ;’ 
to see that public peace is preserved ; to see that all subjects, as 
well ecclesiastics as others, do their duties in their several places; 
to see that all things be managed for that great and architectonical 
end, that is, the weal and benefit of the whole body politic, both for 
soul and body.’’! 

The sovereign “ assumes not the office of teaching or of explain- 
ing the doubtful points of the law, nor of preaching or of minister- 


OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


‘more unrestricted sense than the Angli- 
can Church. Yet they maintain the sole 
spiritual Headship of Jesus Christ, as op- 
posed to the supremacy of the Pope. 
“In 1590 certain prelates of the Rus- 
sian Church joined the Roman commun- 
ion on some concessions being made to 
them. ‘Thus Rome raised the Unia; and 
‘it continued nearly 250 years. At the 
first partition of Poland: between two 
and three million uniats returned to the 
Kastern Church ; and in 1839 the remain- 
ing Russian uniats were received into the 
unity of the Eastern Church, the only act 
of profession required being, that ‘ Our 
Lord Jesus Christ is the only true Head 
of the one true Church.’ ” — Neale’s His- 
tory of the Eastern Church, 1. pp. 56, 57. 
“In 1883 a Synod met at Nauplia for 
the regeneration of the Greek Church. 


The two following propositions were ap- de 


proved by thirty-six prelates : — 


‘1, The Eastern Orthodox and Apos- 
tolic Church of Greece, which spiritu- 
ally owns no head but the Head of the 
Christian faith, Jesus Christ our Lord, is 
dependent on no external authority, 
while she preserves unshaken dogmatic 
unity with all the Eastern orthodox 
churches . . . . with respect to the ad- 
ministration of the Church, which be- 
longs to the Crown, she acknowledges 
the King of Greece to be her supreme 
head as is in nothing contrary to the holy 
Canons. 

“2, A permanent synod shall be estab- 
lished, consisting entirely of archbishops 
and bishops appointed by the king, to be 
highest ecclesiastical authority, after the 
= of the Russian Church.”” — Ibid. p. 


1 Archbishop Bramhall, Answer to Mf. 
Milletitre, Works, 1. pp. 29, 30. 


807 


ing Sacraments, of consecrating persons or things, of exercising 
the power of the keys, or of ecclesiastical censures. In short, he 
undertakes not anything which belongs to the office of the min- 
isters of Christ. But in matters of external polity he claims lc 
right of legislating ; and we gladly give it him. ‘The care of re- 
ligion is an affair of the sovereign and the nation, not merely of 
the clergy.” } 

Again, the supremacy of the crown must not (according to our 
constitution in Church.and state) be considered as an arbitrary and 
unlimited supremacy. Everything in England is limited by law; 
and nothing more than the power of the sovereign. In matters of 
state, the power of the crown is limited by the two houses of Par- 
liament; in the affairs of the Church, it is limited also by the two 
houses of Convocation. Legally and constitutionally, the sovereign 
or the sovereign’s government can do nothing concerning the state 
of the Church, her doctrine and discipline, without first consulting 
the clergy in Convocation, and the laity in Parliament; so that, 
when we acknowledge the supremacy of the crown, we do not put 
our consciences under the arbitrary guidance of the sovereign or 
the ministry ; for we know, that legally nothing can be imposed 
upon us, but what has received the consent of our clergy and laity, 
as represented respectively, 

Indeed, of late, no small difficulty has arisen. The supremacy 
of the crown is now wielded, not by the sovereign personally, but 
by the minister; that minister is the choice of the House of Com- 
mons: that House of Commons is elected by the three kingdoms ; 
and, in two out of those three kingdoms, the vast majority of elec- 
tors are not members of the Church of this kingdom of England. 
In short, the supremacy of the crown has insensibly passed, or at 
least is rapidly passing, into a virtual supremacy of Parliament. 
This unhappily is not a supremacy of the laity of the Church of 
England; because Parliament is composed of representatives from 
England, Ireland, and Scotland; and in the two last the majority 
are Roman Catholics and Presbyterians. This difficulty existed not 
at the period of the Reformation; but is steadily increasing on us 


Sec. I.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 


1 The words are those of Bishop An- 
drewes, selected by James I. to defend 
his supremacy against Bellarmine. “ Do- 
cendi munus vel dubia legis explicandi 
non assumit,.vel conciones habendi, vel 
rei sacre preeundi, vel sacramenta cele- 
brandi; non vel personas sacrandi vel 
res ; non vel clavium jus, vel censure. 
Verbo dicam, nihil ille sibi, nihil nos illi 
fas putamus attingere, que ad sacerdo- 


tale munus spectant, seu potestatem or- 
dinis consequuntur. Procul hee habet 
Rex ; procul a se abdicat. 

“ Atqui in his que exterioris politie 
sunt, ut precipiat, suo sibi jure vendicat ; 
suosque adeo illi lubentes merito deferi- 
mus. Religionis enim curam rem regiam 
esse, non modo pontificiam,” &c.— An- 
drewes, Tortura Torti, Ὁ. 880, p. 467, 
Anglo-Catholie Library. 


808 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


at present. Up to the time of the Reformation, the whole nation 
was of one faith, and united as one Church. The Reformation did 
not introduce a new faith, but restored purity to the old, and re- 
moved the abuses which time had permitted. It was the work of 
prince, prelates, and people; and the Church, which had from the 
beginning been protected by the state, was protected by it still. 

It has been reasonably thought, that the supremacy of the Pope, 
which was suffered before the Reformation, was (to use 9 term 
growing into use) the extreme expression for the superiority of the 
clergy and their dominance over the laity ; whereas the supremacy 
of the crown was the counter expression for the independence and 
power of the laity. 

The same principle only would be expressed by the supremacy 
of Parliament, and so of the minister, if Parliament represented 
only the laity of the English Church. But, as at present con- 
stituted, it in part represents, not only the laity, but the clergy 
also of other communions, which we must, alas! almost call hostile 
to us. . 

It is utterly vain to speculate on the future. We cannot ques- 
tion, that the relation between Church and state is now widely 
different from that which once existed, and that it is fraught with 
new dangers. Yet perhaps it may also bring new advantages. 
And the Rock of the Church still stands unshaken; and shall for- 
ever stand. ‘There is our hope ; not in the favour of princes, nor 
of multitudes of the people. Nor need our fear be of their frown. 
Our real danger is, lest the lukewarmness of the Chureh lead to 
Erastian indifference, or her zeal degenerate into impatience, fac- 
tion, or intemperance. 


[Norr. A few words may be added, on a point which, it is believed, is not gen- 
erally understood. 

It is matter of history, that Cranmer and other Bishops took out commissions 
from Edward VI. for the exercise of their Episcopal functions. This has been in- 
sisted on, especially by the late Lord Macaulay, as proof positive that they regarded 
the Sovereign as the source of their spiritual authority. The truth however is, 
that the act was the natural result of a distinction which was made between spir- 
itual power, and the right to exercise that power, after a coercive manner, in any country 
or state. 

There is contemporaneous evidence, in the book called the Institution of a Chris- 
tian man, published in 1537, that this distinction was made. It is therein asserted, 


1 The remarks in the text are abun- tent, truly represented as to its clergy in 
dant answer to the cavil, that the Church Convocation, as to its laity in Parliament. 
of England is an Act of Parliament The acts of Convocation and Parliament, 
Church. At the time of the Reformation, ratified by the Crown, were therefore the 
and at the various reviews of our Ser- true acts of the Church of England, king, 
vices, the Church was, toa very greatex- priests, and people. 


Src. ΠῚ OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 809 


that “ God’s law committed to bishops or priests the power of jurisdiction .n ex- 
communicating or absolving offenders, but without corporeal restraint or violence.” ‘This 
last is something which it clearly contemplates as coming from the State, and which, 
therefore, the State can revoke. 

So too Bramhall, in his first Vindication, says, ‘‘ It is true the habitual jurisdiction 
of bishops flows from their ordination ; but the actual exercise of it, in public courts, 
after a coercive manner, is from the gracious concessions of Sovereign Princes.” And 
again, “ Habitual jurisdiction is derived only by ordination. Actual jurisdiction is a 
right to exercise that habit, arising from the lawful application of the matter or the 
subject.” And yet again, “ We must distinguish between the interior and the ex- 
terior courts, — between the court of conscience and the court of the Church.... 
The power which is exercised in the court of conscience is solely from ordination. 
But that power which is exercised in the court of the Church [i. 6. as he explains 
it, coercive power imposing other than spiritual penalties] is partly from the Sover- 
eign Magistrate.” 

The commissions, then, which Cranmer and his brethren in the Episcopate re- 
ceived from the Sovereign, were not considered to convey habitual jurisdiction. That 
had been received in ordination. But they gave them the right to exercise that 
habitual jurisdiction, in recognized courts, and after a coercive manner. The idea 
of course grows out of the union of Church and State; and however little it may 
approve itself to us, however undesirable it may seem to add temporal penalties to 
spiritual censures, it at least proves that no such theory was entertained as the tak- 
ing out of the commissions has been supposed to indicate. — J. W.] 





Srcrron Il.— THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP 
OF ROME. 


anes is a most extensive subject, and of primary importance in the 

controversy between the Churches of Rome and England. 
For, if once the supreme authority of the Roman Patriarch is con- 
ceded, all other Roman doctrines seem to follow as of course. 
And so it will probably be found, that all converts tothe Roman 
Church have been led to it from a conviction of the necessity of be- 
ing in communion with the Supreme Pontiff, not from persuasion 
of the truth of particular dogmas. 

The grounds on which the claim rests, are as follows: I. That 
St. Peter had a supremacy given him over the universal Church. 
II. That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. III. That this supremacy 
is inherited by his successors; those successors being the Bishops 
of Rome. 


I. It is said, that St. Peter had a supremacy given him over the 
rest of the Apostles, and over the universal Church. 

1. We may readily admit that St. Peter had a certain priority 
among his brother Apostles assigned to him by our blessed Lord: 


It is constantly the case that, in a company of equals, one, from 
102 


810 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVIL 


greater age, greater energy and zeal, greater ability, or greater 
moral goodness, takes a lead, and acquires a superiority. This 
may have been the case with St. Peter. Our Lord certainly ap- 
pears to have honoured him and St. John, and St. James, with His 
peculiar Jove and favour. And, both during our Lord’s ministry 
and after His resurrection, St. Peter appears to have been signally 
forward in the service of Christ. The fathers observe much this 
quickness, boldness, activity, and energy of St. Peter; which natu- 
rally brought him into the foremost position, and also qualified him 
to take the lead among the disciples. 

Accordingly, a kind of priority of position or rank was appar- 
ently conceded by the other Apostles to St. Peter. This is what 
St. Augustine observes, that ‘St. Peter being the first in the or- 
der of the Apostles, the most forward in the love of Christ, often 
alone answers for the rest.”* The fathers account for this on the 
grounds: 1, that he was the first called of the Apostles ;* 2, that he 
was the eldest ; for which cause St. Jerome supposed that he was 
preferred to St. John, lest a youth should take precedence of an 
elderly man;‘ 3, that he outstripped his brethren in a ready confes- 
sion of faith in Christ.6 So, St. Peter’s name is ever first in the 
catalogue ; and he seems to take the lead in speaking and writing. 

2. But this priority of order involved not a primacy of power, or 
preéminence of jurisdiction. 

(1) If it had done so, we should have found some commission οὗ 
this kind given to him in Scripture. There is plain enough com- 
mission to the Apostleship; but none to a hyper-apostleship, nor 
any mention of the existence of such an office in the history of the 
Gospels and Acts, or in the Epistles of the Apostles. (2) There 
is no title of preéminence given to St. Peter, such as Vicar of 
Christ, Sovereign Pontiff, or Arch-apostle. (3) There was no 
office known to the Apostles or the primitive Church higher than 
that of Apostleship. This, St. Chrysostom tells us, is “ the great- 
est authority, the very summit of authorities.”.® (4) Our Lord. dis- 
tinctly declared against any such superiority; and said that if any 
of the Apostles coveted it, he should be counted least of all (Matt. 

1 ϑερμότερος τῶν ἄλλων εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ὃ “ Quem primum Dominus elegit.” 
Χριστοῦ. --- Greg. Naz. Orat. 84. Tom. 1. —Cypr. Zp. 71 
p60, Colon. See several assages to ἃ 4 Hier. Zn Jovin. τ. Tom. rv. part 1. 

e effect in Barrow, On Pope’s Su- Ῥ. 168. 
premacy, pp. 80, 81. δ “Supereminentem beatw fidei sum 

2 “Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum  confessione gloriam promeruit.” — Hilar. 
ordine primus, in Christi amore promptis- De Zrin. Lib. v1. 
simus, spe unus respondet pro omni- ἀρχῶν. Chrys. 


: : ὁ ἀρχὴ μεγίστη... 
bus.” — August. De Verbis Evangelii, De Uuilit, Lect. Script. in Princip. Actorum 
Matt. xiv. Serm. 76, Tom. v. p. 41 iii. Tom. ru. p. 76. Edit. Benedict. 


Sec. II.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 811 


xx. 27; xxiii. 8. Mark ix. 84, 35; x. 44. Luke ix. 46; xxii. 14, 24, 
26). (5) St. Peter, in his Epistles, claims no peculiar authority (see 
1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 2) ; and in the history, there is no appearance 
of his taking it. The appeal in Acts xv. is not to St. Peter, but to 
the Apostles and elders; and the decree runs in their names, ver. 
22. If any one presided there, it was not he, but St. James. 
Nay! the other Apostles took upon themselves to send Peter and 
John into Samaria (Acts viii. 14); and “he that is sent is not 
greater than he that sends him” (John xiii.16). (6) If St. Peter 
had been the visible head of the Church, those who were of Paul 
or of Apollos might indeed have been factious; but St. Paul as 
severely reproves for a schismatical spirit those who say, “1 am of 
Cephas” (1 Cor. i. 12; iii. 21). (7) The complete independence 
of the Apostles in all their proceedings, in their missionary journeys, 
their founding of Churches, &c. shows the same thing (see 1 
Cor. iv. 14, 15; ix. 2; Gal. iv. 19, &e.). (8) St. Paul’s conduct 
especially proves that he owned no dependence on St. Peter, nor 
subjection to him. He declares himself, “in nothing behind the 
very chiefest Apostles” (2 Cor. xii. 11). On his conversion, he 
took no counsel with men, not even with the Apostles (Gal. i. 16, 
17) ; but acted on his independent commission derived direct from 
Christ (Gal. i. 1). James, Cephas, and John gave him the right 
hand of fellowship, as their equal and co-Apostle (Gal. ii. 9). He 
hesitated not to ““ withstand St. Peter to the face, because he was 
to be blamed” (Gal. ii. 11). And St. Chrysostom observes, that 
thus St. Paul showed himself equal to St. Peter, St. John, and St. 
James, and that by comparing himself, not to the others, but to 
their leader, he proved that each enjoyed equal dignity and im- 
portance.” } 

Lastly, all these arguments from Scripture, against ἃ supreme 
authority of St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles, are fully borne 
out by the statements of the fathers, who, though they speak 
much of the high honour of the former, yet declare that the other 
Apostles were all equal and codrdinate with him in power and 
authority. Thus St. Cyprian: “* The other Apostles were what 
Peter was, endowed with an equal share of honour and power; 
but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church might be 
shown to be one.’”’? ‘* His was,” says St. Ambrose, ‘‘ a precedence 

1 δείκνυσιν αὐτοῖς ὁμότιμον ὄντα λοιπὸν, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio prediti 
καὶ οὐ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἑαυτὸν, ἀλλὰ τῷ Kopvdaiw et honoris et potestatis ; sed exordium 
συγκρίνει, δεικνὺς ὅτι τῆς αὐτῆς ἕκαστος ἀπέ. ab unitate proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia una 


λαυσεν ἀξίας. ---- Chrys. In Gal: 1ϊ. 8. monstretur.””— Cyp. De Unit. Eccles. Ὁ, 
2 “ Hoc erant utique et czteri Apostoli 107. 


812 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


of confession, not of honour ; of faith, not of order.” ! St. Jerome 
says that, though the Church were founded on St. Peter, yet it 
was equally on the other Apostles.2. So Isidore: ‘The other 
Apostles received equal share of honour and power with St. Peter, 
and dispersed throughout the world preached the Gospel; to 
whom, on their departure, succeeded the bishops, who are consti- 
tuted through the world in the sees of the Apostles.” ὃ 


Let. us now, on the other side, consider those passages of 
Scripture, on which it is contended that a distinct supremacy over 
the universal Church was granted to St. Peter. 

1. The first is Matt. xvi. 18: “I say also unto thee, that thou 
art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church; and the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Here, say the Roman 
divines, St. Peter is called the foundation of the Church; and 
foundation implies government and superiority. 

It is observable, that our Lord called St. Peter Πέτγρος, in the 
masculine, which properly signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; 
and that He said He would build His Church, ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, 
using the feminine noun, which more expressly denotes an entire 
rock. This has led many commentators, ancient and modern, to 
believe that the Rock on which the Church should be built, was 
not St. Peter; since in that case, the Lord would have used the 
masculine word zérpw.4 

Accordingly, a large number of the fathers were of opinion 
that the Rock, on which the Church was to be built, was either 
Christ Himself, or, which is much the same thing, the faith of 
Christ thus confessed by St. Peter. Thus, St. Chrysostom inter- 
prets ‘On this Rock,” by ‘* On the faith of this confession.” § ‘So 


1 « Primatum confessionis utique, non 


honoris ; primatum fidei, non ordinis.” — 
Lib. de Incarn. T. τὺ. 

2“ At dicis super Petrum fundatur 
Ecclesia, licet id ipsum alio loco super 
omnes apostolos fiat, et ex equo super 
eos Ecclesie fortitudo solidetur.’’ — Hier. 
In.Jovin. 1. Tom. rv. part. 11. p. 168. 

8 “ Ceteri Apostoli cum Petro par con- 
sortium honoris et potestatis acceperunt, 
qui etiam in toto orbe dispersi evangelium 
predicaverunt, quibusque decedentibus 
successerunt episcopi, qui sunt constituti 
per totum mundum in sedibus Apostolo- 
nr Her wee Hispal. De Offic. Lib. τι. 
ο. 6. 
* Itis thought that the Syriac version 
refutes this opinion; since our Lord 
spoke Syriac, and in that version the 


words are the same, both being 992, 


It is, however, justly observed by Bp. 
Beveridge on this Article, that the sec- 


ond (99... where it means a rock, is 
shown to be feminine, by the use of the 
feminine pronoun 901; whereas the 


first must be masculine, since it is a 
man’s name. Hence the difference be- 
tween Πέτρος and Πέτρα is not γον lost 
in the Syriac; though that language 
does not admit of the same changes of 
termination as the Greek has. 

5 ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ . .. τουτέστι ἐπὶ τῇ 
πίστει τῆς ὁμολογίας. --- Hom. tv1. in Matt. 


xvi. 


Sec. 11. OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 813 


St. Augustine says that our Lord meant, “On this Rock, which 
thou haet confessed, will I build My Church.” ' And, in his 
Retractations, he tells us that he had formerly interpreted the 
passage of St. Peter, but that he afterwards thought it more 
correct to understand it of Him whom St. Peter confessed. Won 
enim dictum est illi, Tu es Petra, sed Tu es Petrus. Petra enim 
est Christus, quem confessus Simon, sicut tota ecclesia confitetur, 
dictus est Petrus. Yet he leaves to the reader to choose which is 
the more probable interpretation.2 In like manner St. Ambrose 
had said, that not Peter, but the faith of Peter, was the founda- 
tion of the Church ;* and in another place the same father writes, 
that ‘“*The Rock is Christ, who granted to His disciple that he 
should be called Petrus, as having from the Rock the solidity of 
constancy and firmness of faith.’’ 4 

To the same effect write Hilary,® Cyril of Alexandria,® Basil 
of Seleucia,’ Theodoret,® Isidore of Pelusium,® Theophylact,!? and 
others. 

On the other hand, no doubt, a great many of the ancients 
understood Peter himself to be the rock. Tertullian is the first 
who so applies the passage ; but we shall see hereafter, that he 
understood no supremacy to be implied in it, and certainly did 
not consider it to be transmitted to the Bishop of Rome." Origen 
too applies it to St. Peter, but evidently understood all the other 
Apostles to have a similar promise.” Nay! he declares that every 
disciple of Christ is a rock, as having drunk from the Spiritual 
Rock ; and on every such rock as this the word of the Church is 
founded. Next comes St. Cyprian, who also calls St. Peter the 
rock; and he says: ‘“‘ Though He committed an equal power to 
all the Apostles, saying, 4s My Father hath sent Me, so send I 


Ecclesiz eedificatio est.”” — Hil. De Trin. 


1 « Super hance Petram, quam confes- 
sus es, zdificabo ecclesiam meam.” — 
August. Zn Johan. tr. 124, Tom. 111. par. 
11. p. 822, and De Verbo Evangelii, Matt. 
xiv.; Serm. 76, Tom. v. p. 415. 

2 Retractat. 1. 21, Tom. 1. p. 32. 

3 « Fides ergo est Ecclesize fundamen- 
tum. Non enim de carne Petri, sed de 
fide dictum est, quia porte mortis ei non 
prevalebunt, sed confessio vincit infer- 
num.” — Ambros. De IJncarnat. Domin. 
Sacrament. c. 5. 

* « Petra est Christus; qui etiam dis- 
cipulo suo hujus vocabuli gratiam non 
negavit, ut et ipse sit Petrus, quod de 
Petra habeat soliditatem constantiz, fidei 
firmitatem.” — Ambros. Lib. v1. Jn Hvan- 

. Luce. 

5 « Super hane confessionis Petram 


Lib. v1. 

ὁ In cap. xliv. Jesaie, p. 598; Id. Dial. 
tv. De SS. Trinit. p. 507. 

τ Orat. xxv. p. 142. 

8 Epist. 77. 

9 Epist. 235, Lib. 1. 

In Matt. xvi, 18. 

1 De Pudicit. α. 21; De Prescript. 
Heret, c. 22. 

12 εἰ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν ἕνα ἐκεῖνον Πέτρον νομί- 
ζεις οἰκοδομεῖσϑαι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μόνεν, τὶ 
ἂν φῆσαις περὶ ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ τῆς βροντῆς 
υἱοῦ καὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων. ---- Origen. 
In Matt. Tom, x11. 11. 

18 Πέτρα γὰρ πὰς ὁ Χριστοῦ μαϑῆτης, ag’ 
οὗ ἐπίνον οἱ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουϑούσης 
πέτρας, κ. τ᾿ A. — Ibid. 


814 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVI 


you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; Whose soever sins ye remit, they 
are remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall 
be retained ; yet, that He might manifest unity, He disposed by 
His authority the origin of that unity, so that it might take its 
rise from one. The rest of the Apostles indeed were what Peter 
was ; endowed with an equal share of honour and power; but the 
beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church may be shown to 
be but one.” } 

So Gregory Nazianzen,* Epiphanius,* Basil the Great,* Jerome,° 
and others understand, that St. Peter was the rock. 

But supposing this latter to be the true interpretation; does 
it follow thence, that St. Peter had a supreme government over 
the other Apostles? Foundation does not, of necessity, imply 
government. Our Lord may have promised to St. Peter, that he 
should be the first to found His Church; which was fulfilled on 
the great day of Pentecost, when St. Peter’s noted sermon brought 
the first-fruits of the Church of Christ. But the fathers say, that 
the other Apostles were rocks as well as St. Peter, and that the 
Church was built on them also. The Fathers, in no instance, 
suppose the other Apostles to have any dependence on, or sub- 
jection to St. Peter; and Dr. Barrow justly observes, that the 
Apostleship itself could not be built on St. Peter, for that had 
been founded by Christ Himself before this promise was given ; 
and hence the Apostles were all clearly independent of St. Peter, 
and therefore their successors, the bishops, must be independent 
of his successors. A passage so doubtful in its interpretation 
can never be sufficient to the purpose for which it is adduced ; 
especially seeing that none of the most ancient fathers, however 
they may interpret it, have discovered in it that supremacy of St. 
Peter which has since been asserted. If St. Peter be called a 


1 “Super unum edificat ecclesiam 
suam, Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus 
parem potestatem tribuat et dicat; Sicut 
misit Me Pater, et Ego mitto vos, accipite 
Spiritum Sanctum ; si cui remiseritis pec- 
cata, remittentur illis, si cui tenueritis, tene- 
buntur: tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, 
unitatis ejus originem ab uno incipientem 
sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant 
utique et cateri Apostoli quod fuit Pe- 
trus, pari consortio preediti et honoris et 
potestatis ; sed exordium ab unitate profi- 
ciscitur, ut una ecclesia monstretur.”— 
Cypr. De Unitate, p. 106. Fell. 
~? Orat. xxv1. Tom. 1. p. 418. 

8 Heeres. u1x. Tom. 1. p. 600. 

* In Cap. ii. Jesaie, Tom. 11. p. 869. 


5 Hieronym. Ad Marcellam adv. Mon- 
tanum, Epist. 27. Tom. rv. part m. p. 64. 

ὁ “ Petrus dicitur, eo quod primus in 
nationibus fidei fundamenta posuerit.”’— 
Pseudo-Ambros. De Sanctis, Serm 2. 

7 See Origen, as above. So Jerome: 
“Dicis super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia, 
licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes 
Apostolos fiat.”” — Hieron. Jn Jovin. Tom. 
ME red 11, p. 168. So Basil. M.: ἐκκλησία 
ὠκοδόμηται ἐπὶ τῷ ϑεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων 
καὶ προφητῶν" ὃν τῶν ὁρέων ἣν καὶ Πέτρος, 

P καὶ Πέτρας ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ Κύριος 

ἐν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. -- Basil. 
In Isai. ii. p. 869. 
* Barrow, Supremacy, p. 62. 


Szo. IL] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. R15 


rock and a foundation, still all the Apostles were foundations, as 
well as he. ‘In the twelve foundations of the city are the names 
of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. xxi. 14). It is “ built 
on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets ” (Ephes. ii. 20). 
In the highest sense, which indeed points out supremacy, ‘“ other 
foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ ἢ 
(1 Cor. iii. 11). And, as St. Ambrose says that the Apostle was 
a rock, as deriving firmness from the Rock; so the Apostles were 
foundations, as themselves built on the One Foundation ; and their 
qualification, as rocks or as foundations, they received, not from 
Peter, but from Christ. 

2. The next argument for St. Peter’s supremacy is the verse 
immediately following the last ; namely, ** And I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt 
bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven” (Matt. xvi. 19). Here 
it is said that the power of the keys was given to St. Peter alone, 
and that the rest of the Church therefore derives that power 
through him. 

We may admit, that the promise being first given to St. Peter 
was a mark of special honour to him. But the same power was 
conferred upon the Church as a body; to which our Lord said, 
“ Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall 
be bound in Heaven” (Matt. xviii. 18). And again, after the 
resurrection, the same power was given to all the Apostles, when 
the risen Saviour “‘ breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive 
ye the Holy Ghost ; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” 
(John xx. 22). It is evident therefore, that neither the Church 
nor the Apostles received this power through St. Peter, but directly 
from Christ Himself; and though the promise was first to St. Peter, 
yet the gift appears to have been simultaneous to all. So then, 
though St. Peter is honoured by a priority, the whole College of 
the Apostles is endowed with an equality of power. 

The fathers unanimously consent to this view of the case. ‘ Are 
the keys of the kingdom of Heaven given to St. Peter alone, and 
shall not all the saints receive them? And if this be common, 
how are not all the things common which were spoken to St. 
Peter?” So writes Origen.1 And St. Cyprian, “ Christ, after 


His resurrection, gave an equal power to all His Apostles, and 


1 "Apa οὖν τῷ Πέτρῳ μόνῳ δίδονται ἀπὸ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν 
τοῦ Κυρίου αἱ κλεῖδες τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας, οὐρανῶν, πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ πάντα τὰ el χὰ 
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἕτερος τῶν μακαρίων αὐτὰς λῆψε- ρημένα καὶ τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα ὡς πρὸς 
ται; εἰ δὲ κοινόν ἐστὶ καὶ πρὸς ἑτέρους τὸ λελεγμένα. --- ΟΥΐσοη. tn Mate Tom. sit nat 


816 


said, As the Father hath sent Me, 80 send I you. Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted ; and whose 80- 
ever sins ye retain, they are retained.” ! ‘On all,” says St. Jerome, 
“the strength of the Church is equally founded. You will say, 
the Church is founded on Peter; but in another place this is said 
to be on all the Apostles; and all receive the keys of the kingdom 
of Heaven.” ? St. Ambrose, “" What is said to Peter, is said to 
411. 8 St. Augustine, ‘Did Peter receive the keys, and not 
Paul? Peter, and not John and James and the rest of the Apos- 
tles?”* Theophylact, “ Though it be spoken to Peter alone, ἢ 
will give thee, yet it is given to all the Apostles. When? Why, 
when He said, Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted.”® And 
so St. Leo, himself a famous Bishop of Rome, says, that “ This 
power of the keys is translated to all Apostles and bishops. It 
was commended singly to St. Peter, because the example of St. 
Peter was propounded to all pastors of the Church.” ® 

Some indeed considered, that the whole Church received the 
keys with St. Peter. St. Peter they esteemed as a kind of figure 
of the Church, and an emblem of its unity ; and so that all received 
the power, even when it was ostensibly given to but one.’ 

And if, notwithstanding this testimony of the fathers, we still 
esteem some special authority to be implied in the promise, we 
can only understand it of his being appointed to be the first, who, 
by preaching of the word and admitting converts to baptism, should 
unlock the gates of the kingdom, and open them to believers. 
**So,” says Tertullian, “‘the event teaches. The Church was 
built on him, ὁ. 6. by him. He first put in the key, when he said, 


OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


! “Christus Apostolis omnibus post 
resurrectionem suam parem potestatem 
tribuit et dicit: Sicut misit me Pater, et 
Ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritum S. Si 
cui remiseritis peccata, remittentur ei, si 
cui retinueritis, tenebuntur.” — Cyprian. 
De Unitate, p. 101. Fell. 

2 “Picis, super Petrum fundatur Ec- 
clesia ; licet id ipsum in alio loco super 
omnes Apostolos fiat, et cuncti claves 
celorum accipiant; et ex sequo super eos 
ecclesia fortitudo solidetur.’’— Hieron. C. 
Jovinian, Lib. 1. Tom. ry. part 1. p. 168. 


8 « Quod Petro dicitur, ceteris Apos- 


tolis dicitur.”” — Ambros. Jn Ps. xxxviii. 
* “Numquid istas claves accepit Pe- 
trus, et Paulus non accepit? Petrus ac- 
cepit, et Joannes, et Jacobus non accepit, 
et ceteri apostoli?’? — August. Serm. 
oxi1x. Tom. v. p. 704. 
So, again, “ Ecclesia que fundatur in 
to, claves ab eo regni coelorum ac- 
cepit, i. e. potestatem ligandi, solvendique 


peccata.”” — Aug. Tract. 124, in Joh. Tom. 

ul. bat. 1. Pos fii ub aie 
el γὰρ καὶ πρὸς Πέτρον μόνον 

τὸ δώσω σοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι ἀποστόλοις δεδό- 

ται" πότε; ὅτε εἶπεν ἂν τινῶν ἀφῆτε τᾶς 

ἁμαρτίας ἀφίενται. ---- Theophyl. in loc. 

6 “Hee clavium potestas ad omnes 
etiam apostolos et Ecclesize presules est 
translata. Quod autem sigillatim Petro 
sit commendata, ideo factum est, quod 
Petri exemplum universis Ecclesie ἐν 
toribus fuit propositum.” — Leo. I. 
de Nativ. 

7 “Tn typo unitatis Petro Dominus 
dedit potestatem.” — August. De Bapt. 
111. 17. Tom. rx. p. 117. 

* Quando ei dictum est, Tibi dabo claves 
. »» + Universam significavit ecclesiam.” 
SS a 124 in Johan. Tom. ται. pt. τι. 

“ Ecclesia claves regni ccolorum date 
sunt, cum Petro date sunt.”’ — De Agone 
Christi 80, Tom. v1. p. 260. 


LK se CC CC TC—CC 


Sec. II] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 817 


Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, 4ο. Acts 
ii, 22. He first opened the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven 
by baptism, whereby the sins were loosed by which they had been 
bound; and he too bound Ananias with the bond of death,’ 1 &c. 

3. The last argument of any weight, for St. Peter’s supremacy, 
is the command, “* Feed My sheep” (John xxi. 16). 

This, however, is an injunction and command, not the bestowal 
of a privilege. Dr. Barrow has observed, that, as well might the 
elders of Ephesus, whom St. Paul exhorts to “ feed the Church of 
God” (Acts xx. 28), have esteemed, that St. Paul thereby con- 


stituted each of them an universal governor of the Church, as St. 


Peter, that he was made by this command an universal bishop. 


And so the fathers understood, that what was here enjoined on 
St. Peter was equally enjoined on all pastors. ‘+ When it is said 
to Peter, it is said to all,” says St. Augnstine.? . “ς These sheep and 
this flock,” says St. Ambrose, “ not only St. Peter did then receive, 
but all we pastors received with him.” 8. And so St. Cyprian, * All 
of them were shepherds ; but the flock was shown to be one, which 
was fed by all the Apostles, with unanimous consent.” 4 The com- 
mand, too, is to feed the flock, not to feed the shepherds. Hence, 
whatever authority may be supposed to be given over the people 
by these words, plainly none is given over the other Apostles. 
Every pastor is, in some sense, a pastor of the whole flock of 
Christ ; the Church of God is committed unto him. But every 
pastor has not therefore authority over his brethren, neither can it 
be shown, that, in thus committing a duty to St. Peter as regards 
the laity, our blessed Lord assigned him a supremacy over the 
clergy. 

The most then that can be fairly made of the case is, that St. 
Peter had a priority of honour among the Apostles; that he was 
primus inter pares. More than this our Lord did not. bestow on 
him ; more the Apostles did not concede to him ; more the earliest 
fathers never. assigned to him; and especially, more he never claimed 
or exercised himself. Eusebius quotes, from’ Clement of Alexan- 


1 “ Sic enim et exitus docet. In ipso 


Eeclesia extructa est, id est, per ipsum: 
ipse clavem imbuit; vides quam — Viri 

sraelite, auribus mandate que dico ;: Jesum 
Nazarenum, virum a Deo destinatum et reli- 
qua. Ipse denique primus in Christi bap- 
tismo reseravit aditum ccelestis regni, 
quo solvuntur alligata retro delicta, et 
alligantur que non fuerint soluta secun- 
dum veram salutem, et Ananiam vinxit 
vinculo mortis.”” — Tertull. De Pudicitia, 
6. 21. 

103 


2 “Cum ei dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, 
Amas me? Pasce oves meas.” — August. 
De Agone Christi, 30, Tom. vr. p. 260. 

3“ Quas oves et quem gregem non 
solum tum B. suscepit Petrus, sed et cum 
eo nos suscepimus omnes.” — Ambros. 
De Dignitat. Sacerd. 2. 

* “ Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex 
unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus 
unanimi consensione pascitur.” — Cypr. 
De Unitate Eccles. 


818 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVI. 


dria, a passage markedly illustrative of all these statements. “ Peter 
and James and John,” says he, ‘after the ascension of the Saviour, 
contended not for glory, as having been most highly honoured by 
the Lord, but chose James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem.” 7 
The writer of this passage could not have believed that St. Peter 
had, or claimed a supremacy over his brethren ; nor, we may observe 
by the way, could he have thought any bishopric in the Church 
more honourable than that of Jerusalem. 


II. The next position of the Roman Church is, that St. Peter 
was bishop of Rome. 

It is not to be doubted, that a tradition did exist in early times 
that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. But, if that tradition be sub- 
mitted, like others of the same kind, to the test of historical inves- 
tigation, it will be found to rest on very slender foundation. In the 
first place, Scripture is silent about his having been at Rome, —a 
remarkable silence, if his having been Bishop there was a fact of 
such vital importance to the Church, as the Roman divines have 
made it to be. Then, the first tradition of his having been at Rome 
at all does not appear for more than a century after his death. It 
is nearly two centuries after that event that we meet with any- 
thing like the opinion that the Roman bishops were his successors. 
It is three centuries before we find him spoken of as Bishop of 
Rome. But when we reach three centuries and a half, we are told, 
that he not only was Bishop of Rome, but that he resided five and 
twenty years at Rome ; a statement utterly irreconcilable with the 
history of the New Testament. 

To begin with the new Testament, the only evidence that can 
be thence adduced for St. Peter’s having been at /tome, is that he 
seems to have written his first Epistle from Babylon (1 Pet. v. 
18). Eusebius? says this meant Rome. He appears to say it on 
the authority of Papias; though some learned men deny, that he 
ascribes the tradition to Papias. Jerome follows Eusebius in this 
statement. The Roman divines generally adopt it. Yet a learned 
writer of their communion truly observes, that the use of such a 
metonymy may be very proper in a symbolical book, like the 
Apocalypse, ** but would only be credible in the subscription of an 
epistle, if arcana nomina Keelesiarum had existed among Chris- 
tians.”* Ifthe tradition be due to Papias, he is doubtless a very 


1 “Kuseb. H. Εἰ. 11.1, quoting Clement ὃ De Viris Ill. c. 8. 
from the sixth book of the Hypotyposes. * Hug, Jntroduction to the New Testa- 
2. Ε. Lib. τ᾿ ο. 16. ment, part 11, sect. 165. 


Sec. II] _ OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 819 


early authority (A. Ὁ. circ. 110) ; but Eusebius himself has given 
us to understand, that he was a person whose judgment was not. 
to be. depended on, and particularly that he was an enthusiast about 
the Apocalypse. Hence his interpreting St. Peter by the language 
of the Apocalypse is not of much weight. 

Farther than this, the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul’s Epistle 
to the Romans, St. Paul’s four Epistles written from Rome, St. 
Peter’s two Epistles, are all profoundly silent about St. Peter ever 
having been at Rome. Indeed, it seems almost certain that, when 
St. Paul went to Rome, St. Peter had not been there. Not only 
is there no mention, of such a thing, but St. Paul, when writing 
to the Romans, writes much as if no Apostle had ever been amongst 
them. (Comp. Rom. i. 10-15; xv. 15-24). And, when he was 
at Rome, it seems clear from the narrative, that the Jews of Rome 
had had no communication with any chief teacher among the 
Christians, at least with any who had been converted from Juda- 
ism; they were therefore desirous to hear of him what he thought, 
- knowing only that the sect of Christians was everywhere spoken 
against (Acts xxviii. 22). Now how is this compatible with the al- 
leged fact, that St. Peter, the Apostle of the circumcision, to whom 
the conversion of the Jews had been peculiarly intrusted, had been 
the founder of the Church of Rome, and had been resident there 
for some time? Again, if St. Peter had been at Rome, when St. 
Paul wrote to the Romans, St. Paul would surely have saluted 
him. If he had been there when St. Paul was there, it would 
surely have been mentioned in the Acts. If he had previously 
been there, and had been established as bishop of the city, it is 
utterly incredible that St. Paul should have assumed such author- 
ity over St. Peter’s flock, as he does assume over the Romans, and 
that the Jews of Rome should have been utterly uninstructed in 
the Gospel. 

Of the fathers, the first who speaks to the purpose is Irenzeus. 
He says, that the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, founded and 
established the Church of Rome, and delivered the bishopric to 
Linus, to whom succeeded Anacletus, and to him Clement.! 
Clement of Alexandria says that St. Peter preached at Rome, and 
that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of St. Peter’s 
hearers.? Tertullian says, Clement was ordained by St. Peter to 
be Bishop of Rome.’ Origen tells us, that St. Peter, having 
preached to the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, 


1 Tren. 111. 3. 2 Hypotyp. Lib. v1. apud Euseb. H. E. τι. 14. 
8 De Prescript. c. 82. τῇ ᾿ 


820 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


and Asia, at last (ἐπὶ τέλει) came to Rome, and was crucified with 
his head downwards.!. The Apostolical Constitutions say, that 
Linus was made first Bishop of Rome by St. Paul, and that after 
his death Clement was ordained to the same office, by St. Peter.? 
Lactantius tells us that the time of St. Peter’s going to Rome was 
the reign of Nero.’ Eusebius speaks of Linus as the first Bishop 
of Rome, after St. Paul and St. Peter;* and elsewhere, that Linus 
was first Bishop of Rome after St. Peter, and that Clement was 
the third.® Also he assigns the date of St. Peter’s first going to 
Rome to the reign of Claudius.® 

Now here we have a collection of the earliest and best authori- 
ties, concerning St. Peter’s connection with Rome, and concerning 
the bishops that first presided there. Origen says, he went there 
at last ; Lactantius says, in the reign of Nero. Eusebius, later 
than either of them, and much later than Origen, assigns as a 
date the reign of Claudius. None of them say, that he was 
Bishop of Rome. On the contrary, all agree in saying that the 
first bishop of that see was Linus. All place Linus there during 
the Apostles’ lifetime. Some say that St, Paul, others that St, 
Peter and St. Paul, ordained him ; whilst some say that Clement, 
the third bishop, was ordained by St. Peter. The inference is 
plainly this. At whatever time St. Peter came to Rome, (which 
niost probably was in Nero’s reign, and very shortly before that 
tyrant put him to death,) there was some one else Bishop of Rome 
then, and therefore St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome. Linus 
was bishop first, then Anacletus, then Clement. Very probably 
all three, one after the other, were bishops before St. Peter’s 
death. But, whether one or three, some one else, not St. Peter, 
was Bishop of Rome, in St. Peter’s lifetime. Two bishops were 
never permitted to preside over one see; and therefore it is quite 
clear that St. Peter was not Bishop. of the see of Rome. 

It is very true that St. Cyprian and Firmilian, in the middle 
of the third century, speak of Stephen, Bishop of Rome, as claiming 
to be successor to St. Peter; and, though not submitting to his 
authority, they still appear to acknowledge his claim. Yet they 
never said that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome; but they acknowl- 
edged Stephen’s succession from him, because they considered 
that St. Peter founded the Church of Rome, ordained the first 

τ Ap. Euseb. ΤΠ, EZ. ται. 1. 3 De Mortibus Persecutorum, c. 2. 

3. Constitut. A » wu. 46. Here ὁ 111. 2 
Clement is made the second bishop of © πι. 4. : 


Rome; Anacletus, whom Irenwus men- δ 41. 14. 
tions as second, being omitted. 


ΒΟ ΚΕ ee 


Sxce. 1.1 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 821 


bishop there, and that therefore the apostolical succession came, 
through the Bishops of Rome, from that Apostle. 

The circumstances of the Roman Church were very remarkable. 
It was the only Church in the West that could certainly trace its 
origin to Apostles. The Apostles who were at Rome, were the 
greatest of all; for there St. Paul undoubtedly taught, there prob- 
ably both St. Paul and St. Peter ordered the Church, ordained 
its first bishops, and finally watered it with their blood. There, if 
the tradition speak truly, St. John too was thrown into boiling oil, 


‘and escaped unhurt. The three greatest Apostles then had prob- 


ably taught and suffered at Rome. St. Peter and St. Paul had 
ordered the Church, and ordained very probably the first three 
bishops. No Church but Jerusalem could claim such privileges as 
this. No wonder then, that throughout the West the Church of 
Rome and her bishop should be had in high honour. No wonder 
that St. Cyprian, himself a Western bishop, ‘should have looked up 
to the see of Rome as the centre of Christian unity, and the de- 
pository of sound doctrine. But all this does not make St. Peter 
the first diocesan bishop there, nor does it prove that Cyprian 
thought him so. 

The explanation of Rufinus is evidently the true, namely, that 
Linus, Cletus, and Clement were the Bishops of Rome ; but that 
St. Peter, whilst he was there, exercised apostolical authority, 
which was above every episcopate, and therefore not interfering 
with it.} 

And so it is observed, that many churches took their names 
from the Apostles, and were called Apostolical sees ; not because 
Apostles were Bishops in them, but because Apostles taught and 
appointed bishops there. Thus Ephesus was so called, because 
St. Paul founded it, and St. John resided and ordained there. 
Smyrna, because Polycarp was placed there by St. John or other 
Apostles. Alexandria, because St. Mark was placed there by 
St. Peter. Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi, because founded by St. 
Paul. Antioch, because St. Peter is said to have resided there, 
and to have constituted its first bishops. 

It is true that, when we get to the later fathers, we find that 
the story of St. Peter’s Roman episcopate (a fiction eagerly cherished 
by the prelates of that see) was gaining ground and attracting 
credit. Epiphanius therefore speaks of St. Peter and St. Paul as 


1 “Tinus et Cletus fuerunt quidem ante patus curam gererent, ipse vero Apostola- 
Clementem episcopi in urbe Roma, sed tus impleret officium.” — Rufin. in Pref. 
superstite Petro; videlicet utilli Episco- Clem. ὃ 


822 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


the first Apostles, and also bishops of Rome ;! no very definite 
statement after all. But Jerome (A. Ὁ. cire. 400) positively asserts, 
that St. Peter, after having been Bishop of Antioch, went to Rome, 
where he was bishop for five and twenty years. He says this, both 
in his treatise De Viris Illustribus,? and also in his Latin translation 
of Eusebius’s Chronical Canon ;* which, however, contains many 
things not said by Eusebius, and this amongst the rest. The fact, 
thus stated by Jerome, is simply impossible ; and the origin of it is 
probably to be attributed to a perversion of the account of Lac- 
tantius ; which account is, that, after preaching five and twenty: 
years in divers provinces, Peter came, in Nero’s reign, to Rome.® 
Thus the tradition was like Homer’s "Epis: — 

Ἥ τ᾽ ὀλίγη μὲν πρῶτα κορύσσεται, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα 

Οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε κάρη, καὶ ἐπὶ χϑονὶ βαίνει." 

At first, it was but that St. Peter and St. Paul had constituted 
the Church in Rome, ordained Linus as its bishop, and there suf- 
fered for their testimony. Then they are spoken of as if they 
might have been bishops themselves; the Roman bishops are then 
said to be St. Peter’s successors; and lastly, it is roundly asserted 
that St. Peter was actually Bishop of Rome for five and twenty 
years. That to fan the spark into a flame was the interest and 
the wish of such prelates as Victor and Stephen, even charity 
cannot make us doubt. But, after such a plain history of the rise 
and progress of the tradition, it is impossible not to see that it has 
no firm foundation. 

There is indeed no good reason to doubt, that St. Peter was at 
Rome ; that he assisted St. Paul to order and establish the Church 
there ; that, in conjunction with St. Paul, he ordained one or more 
of its earliest bishops, and that there he suffered death for the sake 
of Christ. But there is no reason to believe, that he was ever, in 
any proper or local sense, Bishop of Rome; or indeed that, in that 
sense, any one of the Apostles had a fixed episcopate ; with the 
single exception of St. James (if he were an Apostle), who was 
appointed to preside over Jerusalem, lest that city, where Jesus died, 


1 Ἐλνν Ῥώμῃ γὰρ γεγόνασι πρώτοι Πέτρός 
καὶ Παύλος οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοὶ καὶ ἐπίσκοποι, 
εἶτα Aivoc, —Epiph. Her. xxvu1. num. 6. 

* “ Post episcopatum Antiochensis Ec- 


5 “ Apostoli per annos Xxv usque ad 
principium Neroniani imperii per omnes 
provincias et civitates Ecclesia fundamen- 
ta miserunt. Cumgue jam Nero im 


clesiw ... Romam pergit, ibique viginti 

quinque annis cathedram sacerdotalem 

tenuit.” — De V. 1. ο. 1. 

® Chron. p. 160. 

μανοῦ τὰ εἰ Eusebius is, nines ὁ 
o¢ ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ πρώτην ϑεμε- 

λιώσας ἐκκλησίαν εἰς 'P βλεσα : ων 

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. ---- Xpov. Kav. ad Num. M.T. 


raret, Petrus Romam advenit,” &c, — 

Mortibus Persecutorum, c. ἃ. Pagi gives 
this explanation, Critic.in Baron. Ann, 48, 
ΡΟΝ by Lardner, Works, v1. 


PH Δ. 442. 


Src. II.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 823 


and rose from the dead, and from whence the Church first took its 
origin, and thence spread through the world, should lack an Apostle, 
and witness of the resurrection, to be constantly present there, and 
to form a kind of centre and home for the first preachers of the 
faith. All the other Apostles had the world for their diocese ; 
and wheresoever they came, they, as a thing of course, exercised 
supreme and hyper-episcopal control, discipline, and government. 
Indeed, if any Apostle could be called Bishop of Rome, St. Paul 
has more claim to that title than St. Peter. For St. Paul was the 
Apostle of the Gentiles; whereas St. Peter’s mission was to the 
Jews. St. Paul wrote an Epistle to the Romans, which St. Peter 
did not. St. Paul lived two years at Rome, before there is any 
good ground for believing that St. Peter had been there at all. 
St. Paul is said to have constituted the first bishop there.' More- 
over, St. Paul himself speaks of having “the care of all the 
Churches,” 7. 6. the Gentile Churches (2 Cor. xi. 28). All this 
will constitute a better case for St. Paul’s Roman episcopacy, and 
for his supremacy over the Gentile Churches, than can possibly 
be made out for St. Peter’s. 


III. The third position of the Roman divines is, that St. Peter’s 
supremacy is inherited by his successors, the Bishops of Rome. 

If we have seen that St. Peter had no proper supremacy, and 
that he was not Bishop of Rome ; then, the premises being gone, 
the consequence must fall with them. If St. Peter had no suprem- 
acy, it could not be inherited. If he was not Bishop of Rome, the 
Popes could not inherit from him. 

But farther, whatever priority St. Peter had among his brother 
Apostles was personal, not official. He held no office, which they 
did not hold equally. There is no mention of an Arch-Apostle ; 
and though St. Paul speaks of the chiefest Apostles (οἱ ὑπὲρ λίαν 
dxdotodo), he speaks of them in the plural, not as if there were but 
one of supreme authority ; and he says that he himself was “ not 
a whit behind them” (2 Cor. xi. 5). As then St. Peter’s prior- 
ity was personal, not official, it could not be inherited. It was 
grounded on personal acts, especially his faithful confession of 
Christ. It contained some personal privileges ; 6. g. the first found- 
ing of the Church, which, being that on which much stress is laid, 
is yet incommunicable to his successors, who cannot now be the 
first founders of the Christian temple or commonwealth. And so 
Tertullian observes, that the manifest intention of the Lord was te 


1 Constitut. Apostol. v11. 46, as above. 


824 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


confer this privilege personally on St. Peter, and that the presuming 
to derive that power to the bishop of a particular see was a sub- 
verting of that intention. 

Again, we can trace the rise and progress of this supremacy of 
Rome, and easily perceive the grounds of it. It was not admitted 
at the first, but crept in by degrees, till it reached its perfect stat- 
ure. St. Clement, who was Bishop of Rome, writes to the Corin- 
thians in a brotherly tone, and with less appearance of authority 
than St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, seems to assume when writ- 
ing to the Romans. St. Polycarp knew nothing of the supremacy 
of Anicetus, when he went to consult with him about the keeping 
of Easter. He yielded in no degree to the Roman Bishop’s author- 
ity ; but both determined to retain their own customs and sentiments, 
yet not on that account to divide the Catholic Church.2 Not very 
long after this, we find Polycrates, a successor to Polycarp in the 
see of Smyrna, again at issue with Victor, Bishop of Rome, on the 
Easter controversy. Victor indeed showed much of the spirit 
which has since prevailed at the Vatican; and excommunicated 
Polycrates.. But Polycrates and the Synod of Asiatic bishops 
refused to acknowledge the authority of that prelate.® Several bish- 
ops, though agreeing in Victor’s opinion, were much displeased at 
his violence ; and letters were written by them severely reproving 
him for such conduct. Especially St. Irenzeus, Bishop of Lyons, 
in the name of the Christians of Gaul, over whom he presided, 
wrote a dignified remonstrance, warning Victor not to break the 
unity of the Catholie Church. 

At the end of the second century, we find from Tertullian that 
the Bishop of Rome claimed that he, and all other Churches founded 
by St. Peter, derived through St. Peter the power to bind and to 
loose.® This claim Tertullian disallows; but it is a claim very dif- 
ferent from that of universal dominion ; for it must have admitted 
the Bishops of Antioch and others to the like privilege. 


1 “ Qualis es evertens atque commu- 
tans manifestam Domini intentionem per- 
sonaliter hoc Petro conferentem.” — De 


A the resort of so many, Apostolical tra- 
t 


ion is preserved.” — Adv. Her. 111. 8. 


Pudicit, c. 21, See also Bishop Kaye’s 
Tertullian, pp. 236, 237. 

2 Euseb. Hi. Ε΄ 1v. 14, v. 24. 

8 “ Si qui discrepabant ab illis Victori 
non dederunt manus.”’ — Hieronym. De 
V. 1. 8. v. Ireneus. 

* Euseb. H. Αἰ. v. 24; Hieronym. De 
V. I. Ireneus indeed in one place says, 
that, ‘in the Church of Rome, on account 
wf her more powerful principality, the 
faithful everywhere must meet, in which, 


All that we can gather from this is, that 
the city and the Church of Rome had a 
great preéminence, that it was the great 
centre or focus of the Christian world, and 
so the truth was best preserved there. 

δ “Tdcirco presumis et ad te derivasse 
solvendi et alligandi potestatem, id cst, 
ad omnem ecclesiam Petri inguam,”? — 
De Pudicit. c. 21. The be: Pudicitia isa 
Montanist tract, but its evidence as to the 
claims of Rome is as good as if it were 
Catholic. 


Sec. IL] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 825 


In the third century, we have the famous controversy about he- 
retical baptism, dividing the Western Church. It had first begun 
amongst the Asiatics. Afterwards, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 
being consulted by the Numidian bishops, called several councils at 
Carthage, a. Ὁ. 255, which were attended by large numbers of Af- 
rican bishops.!. They unanimously decreed the rebaptizing of her- 
etics. This brought them into collision with Stephen, Bishop of 
Rome ; as the Roman Church took the opposite view. Stephen 
refused to listen to the deputies from the Council, and renounced 
communion with the African Churches. They, on the other hand, 
maintained their own views, and expressed their disapproval of 
Stephen’s attempt to make himself a ‘“‘ bishop of bishops.” 2. A cor- 
respondence took place between Cyprian and Firmilian, Bishop of 
Ceesarea in Cappadocia ; in which both express extreme disappro- 
bation of Stephen’s conduct, and accuse him of schismatically intro- 
ducing differences throughout the Church. Firmilian says, the power 
of binding and loosing was given by Christ to the Apostles and the 
bishops who succeeded them; and blames the manifest folly of 
Stephen, who gloried in the place of his episcopate, and contended 
that he was a successor of St. Peter, on whom the Church’s foun- 
dation was laid, and yet himself introduced new rocks and new 
foundations. Again on another occasion, the bishops of Africa, 
among whom was St. Augustine, not only submitted not, in the 
case of Apiarius, to the authority of the Bishops of Rome, Zosimus, 
Boniface, and Celestine, but in the Council of Africa, a. Ὁ. 424, 
wrote. strongly to Pope Celestinus, denying his right to interfere 
with their jurisdiction, complaining that he violated the canon of 
the Council of Nice, which directed, that causes of the bishops and 
clergy should be heard by their own metropolitan, and not carried 
elsewhere.’ They had even in a previous Council at Milevis, a. Ὁ. 
416, forbidden appeals to be carried beyond the seas, on pain of 
separation from all communion with the African Churches.® 

But above all, Pope Gregory the Great, himself an illustrious 
Bishop of Rome, so vehemently protested against John Nesteuta, 


1 Seventy-one were present at the sec- = Epistol. Firmilian. Oper. Cyprian. 


ond, and eighty-seven at the third Coun- 
cil. 4 
2 “«Neque enim quisquam nostrum 
episcopum se episcoporum constituit ; aut 
tyrannico terrore, ad obsequendi necessi- 
tatem collegas suos adegit; quando ha- 
beat omnis episcopus pro licentia liberta- 
tis et potestatis sux, arbitrium proprium, 
tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam 
nec ipse potest judicare.”” — Cyprianus Jn 
Concil. Carthag. : 
104 


Epist. txxv. p. 225, B. 

* Concil. Tom. u. p. 1674; Justelli, 
Cod. Can. Eccle. Afric. p. 408. 

5 «Non provocent nisi ad Africana 
concilia, vel ad primatas provinciarum ; 
ad transmarina autem qui putaverit ap- 
pellandum, a nullo intra Africam in com- 
munionem suscipiatur.” — Concil. Milev. 
Can. 22; Barrow, On the Supremacy, p 
248. See also Bingham, rx. i. 11; Hus 
sey’s Rise of the Papacy, pp. 40-46. 


826 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


the Bishop of Constantinople, for desiring to have the name of uni- 
versal bishop, that he pronounced such an assumption a proof that 
he who made it was the forerunner of Antichrist... * None,” says 
he, ‘‘ of my predecessors ever consented to use so profane a word ; 
because if one patriarch is called universal, the name of patriarch 
is taken away from the rest.” 

If we look to the canons of the general councils, we find that 
they acknowledge the great Patriarchs ; that they give them au- 
thority according to ancient custom within their own patriarchates ; 
that they put Rome first, not because of St. Peter’s primacy, but 
because Rome is the imperial city; Constantinople next, because it 
is new Rome; and afterwards elevate Constantinople to an equality 
with Rome ; and that they specially forbid bishops to interfere with 
the dioceses of other bishops. Thus, the vith Canon of the Coun- 
cil of Nice says: “ Let those ancient customs be in force which con- 
cerned Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexan- 
dria should have authority over them, since the like is customary 
with the Bishop of Rome. So also in Antioch, and the other 
provinces, let the dignities be preserved to the Churches.” 2. Balsa- 
mon’s gloss on this is, that they confirmed the authority of the four 
Patriarchs, namely, of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 
over their respective patriarchates.? So that this great Council 
placed the Roman Bishop only ona level with those of Antioch, 
Alexandria, and Jerusalem ; and this too, as a matter of ancient 
custom, not of divine right. 

The second canon of the Council of Constantinople (a. p. 381) 
especially forbids that bishops should go beyond their dioceses, 
restrains the Bishop of Alexandria to Egypt, the eastern bishops to 
the East, and so on; and forbids, that any bishop should go out 
of his own diocese for ordination, or any other ecclesiastical minis- 
trations. The third canon of the same council decrees, that the 
Bishop of Constantinople shall take rank immediately after the 
Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome.® 

The eighth canon of the Council of Ephesus (a. Ὁ. 431) forbids 


1 “Ego autem fidenter dico quia quis- 
quis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, 
seu vocari desiderat, in elatione sua An- 
tichristum precurrit, quia superbiendo 
se ceteris e*beels ” — Gregor. Magn. 
Epist. vit. 

So again, ‘“ Nullus unquam decesso- 
rum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo 
uti consensit, quia videlicet si unus Pa- 
triarcha universalis dicitur, patriarcha- 
ἂν nomen ceteris derogatur.” — Ibid. 
v. 48. 


“ Indignant as Gregory was at the 
Bishop of Constantinople calling himself 
(Ecumenical Patriarch, that title had 
been given him by law from the time of 
Justinian, and was therefore no new 
thing in Gregory’s time.” — See Bing- 

ὙΠ Synodia, Ἢ 66. 

evereg om. 1. 

8 Ibid. ᾿' 

* Ibid. p. 87. 

ν᾿ μὰ amie cant Bathe 
Ρ. ΕΣ 


Sze. II.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 827 


any bishop to invade another province, which has not from the 
beginning been under his own authority.! 

The twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon declares, 
that the fathers of the Council of Constantinople gave privileges to 
the see of Rome, because that city was the seat of opipite: Where- 
fore also, moved by the same reason, the fathers assigned the like 
privileges to the see of new Rome, 7. 6. Constantinople, seeing that 
Constantinople was now honoured with the empire and the senate.? 
These decrees of the Council of Constantinople the Council of 
Chalcedon accordingly confirms. 

From all this we plainly learn, that the Roman Patriarch had 
no more authority given him than the other Patriarchs, of Con- 
stantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria; that the first place was 
assigned to Rome, because Rome was the imperial city, not because 
her bishop had a divine right to preéminence; that, however, the 
Bishop of Constantinople had a like honour bestowed upon him, 
when his city rose to the like position with that of his brother 
Patriarch ; and, above all, that no bishop was ever to invade any 
diocese, which had not from old times been subject to him or to 
his predecessors. How any of these considerations will agree 
with the later claims of the Roman Pontiff, it is hard to say. 

The first great step towards supremacy was given to the Pope 
by the Council of Sardica (4.p. 347). Before this time, when 
bishops had been deposed and had reason to complain, they appealed 
to the Emperors to summon a larger synod to review their cause. 
The great Athanasius had thus appealed to the Emperor, and had 
been restored, after he was deposed by the Tyrian Synod. The 
xuth Canon of the Council of Antioch, supposed to be directed 
against him, forbade such an appeal, Subsequently Athanasius, 
ill-used by the Eastern bishops and by Constantius the Arian 
Emperor, had fled for assistance and support to the Western 
bishops, especially to the Patriarch of Rome. As there was an 
Arian Emperor, and there had at all times been a difficulty con- 
nected with the imperial interference in doctrinal questions, it was 


not unnatural for the orthodox 


1 ὥστε μηδένα τῶν ϑεοφιλεστάτων ἐπι- 
σκόπων ἐπαρχίαν ἑτέραν, οὐκ οὖσαν ἄνωϑεν 
καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ Hyovy τῶν πρὸ 
αὐτοῦ χεῖρα, καταωλαμβώνειν. ---- Bevereg. 
Synodie. Tom. 1. p. 104. 

2 Καὶ yap τῳ ϑρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας 
Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην 
οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα. 
Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῷ κινούμενοι οἱ ἕκατον 


bishops to look for some other 


πεντήκοντα, ϑεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα 
πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς νέας Ῥώμης 
ἁγιωτάτῳ ϑρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν 
βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηϑεῖσαν πόλιν, 
καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαυοῦσαν πρεσβείων τῇ 
πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς 
ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς, ὡς ἐκείνην, μεγαλύνεσϑαι 
πράγμασι, δευτέραν per’ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν 
— Ibid. p. 145. 


828 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


centre, where appeals might be made; and the see of Rome most 
naturally presented itself. The bishop there was the most im- 
portant on every account. Rome was the head of the world, the 
_ centre of civilization, the centre of orthodoxy ; and the greatest 
number of bishops and clergy looked up to its Patriarch as their 
leader and chief. Accordingly, in an unhappy moment, the Synod 
of Sardica, in its third canon, gave to Julius, Bishop of Rome, 
“honouring the memory of St. Peter,” the power, if he thought fit, 
“to appoint the neighbouring bishops of a province to hear” an 
appeal, “and to send assessors,” such as the emperor used to send.} 
It is added, by the fourth canon, that if a deposed bishop appeal 
to Rome, his place shall not be filled till the Bishop of Rome has 
heard the case.?- And by the fifth canon it is decreed, that, when 
an appeal has been made to the Bishop of Rome, he may appoint 
the provincial bishops to try the case, or send legates himself.8 
The whole wording of the canons shows that all this was new. 
Moreover, the council was not general. But the effect of its 
decrees was very evil. Pope Zosimus afterwards quoted them as 
decrees of the Council of Nice, in the case of Apiarius mentioned 
above; and the African bishops were obliged to investigate the 
question, as to whether they did really issue from that great 
synod ; and finding that they did not, they utterly rejected their 
authority. Yet these canons laid the foundation of appeal to 
Rome, and so of Roman supremacy. And Dr. Barrow calls them 
‘the most unhappy ever made in the Church.” ® 

From this time, the power of the see of Rome rapidly gained 
ground. It would be long to trace its progress, and the oppo- 
sition which was raised to it by wise and far-seeing men, as it 
advanced towards its zenith. Such a survey of history would 
indeed be instructive, as showing how different were the pretensions 
of Gregory VII. and Innocent III. from those of such prelates as 
even Victor or Stephen ; though the latter were amongst the most 
imperious of the early “ successors of the fisherman.” Suffice it to 
have given some proof, that St. Peter had no proper supremacy ; 
that he was never Bishop of Rome; and that the Roman Patri- 
archs had not jure divino, nor from the earliest ages, a jurisdiction 
over the universal Church. 


1 gta eae Tom. 1. p. 485. Origines Britan, ch. 111., near the end; 

2 Ibid. p rid Palmer, On the Church, 11. pp. 520, 548. 
ὃ Ibid. “δ. 488 ® The progress is well traced by Pro- 
. εὐ" ussey’ ’s Rise of the Papacy, pp. fessor Husse L, fos small volume al- 


ready refe 
ay i. Barrow, p. 260; Stillingfleet’s 


Sec. IIL] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. ὁ 829 


IV. There is one other ground, besides that of universal Pri- 
macy, on which the Pope claims jurisdiction in England ; namely, 
that England was in the Patriarchate of Rome. 

When patriarchates first arose is uncertain. The name is first 
used by Socrates (about a. ἢ. 4401). But the office was evidently 
more ancient. It probably arose from the gradually apparent use- 
fulness of such an order in the government of the Church. Their 
authority: was confirmed, as we have seen, to the great patriarchs, 
by the Council of Constantinople, and afterwards by those of Ephe- 
sus and Chalcedon.? All bishops indeed were esteemed equal, as 
bishops, by the primitive fathers; ὁ. 6. they were of equal authority, 
jure divino ;* but, for the sake of a more orderly Church-govy- 
ernment, metropolitans were placed over provinces, and patriarclis 
over those still larger divisions which were then called dioceses, 
corresponding with the civil divisions of the Empire.* 

As to the limits of the Roman Patriarchate, much depends on 
what is meant by the term Suburbicary Churches. Rufinus, in 
his translation of the Nicene Canons, gives us the sixth of these 
in the words: “ The custom of Alexandria and of Rome shall still 
be observed, that the one shall have the care of the Egyptian, the 
other of the suburbicarian Churches.” ® The very word suburbica- 
rian clearly points to churches not far distant from Rome; and 
it has been proved, that the suburbicarian Churches meant. those 
within the district, which belonged to the Vicarius Urbis ; 7. 6. the 


1 Socr. H. E. v. 8. Conc. Chalced. Rome, containing the suburbicarian 


2 Bing. 15. A. τι. xvii. 1, 9. 

8 “ Episcopatus unus est, cujus a sin- 
gulis in solidum pars tenetur.’’ — Cyp- 
rian. De Unitate, p. 108. 

“‘ Ubicunque est episcopus, sive Rome, 
sive Eugubii, ejusdem est meriti, ejus- 
dem sacerdotii; potentia divitiarum et 
paupertatis humilitas sublimiorem vel 
inferiorem episcopum non facit.”” — Hi- 
eronym. Ad Evagrium, Epist. 85. 

* A bishop’s jurisdiction was over a 
παροικία, a metropolitan’s over an ἐπαρχία, 
a patriarch’s over a διοίκησις, correspond- 
ing with the civil jurisdiction of imperial 
officers. In the Empire there were seven 
dioceses in the East, and six in the West, 
besides the Prefecture of Rome. Hence, 
in the Church there were fourteen dio- 
ceses or patriarchates. In the East, 1. 
Egypt, under the Patriarch of Alexan- 
dria. 2. The East, under the Patriarch 
of Antioch. 8. Asia, under the Patriarch 
of Ephesus first, — afterwards under 
Constantinople. 4. Pontus, under Czsa- 
trea. 5. Thrace, under Thessalonica, — 
afterwards under Constantinople. 6. Ma- 
cedonia. 7. Dacia. In the West, 1. 


.der Toledo. 


provinces, under the Patriarch of Rome. 
2. Italy, under Milan. 3. Africa, under 
Carthage. 4. Illyria, which afterwards 
fell under Constantinople. 5. Gaul, un- 
der Treves,— afterwards under Arles. 
6. Spain, under Seville, — afterwards un- 
7. Britain, under York. In 
the fourteen dioceses of the empire there 
were 118 provinces; and there was the 
like number in the Church. But, as in 
the civil government there were three 
chief cities, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, 
so the bishops of these were called Pa- 
triarchs by preéminence (as was after- 
wards the Bishop of Constantinople) ; 
the bishops of the other great dioceses 
being called Primates, though with patri- 
archal powers, — Primates of dioceses, not 
merely metropolitans of provinces. See 
Crackanthorp, Defensio Eccles. Anglican. 
cap. ΧΧΙΙ. 88 64, 65. 

> “Ut apud Alexandriam, et in urbe 
Roma, vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut 
vel ille συριεῖ, vel hic suburbicarium 
ecclesiarum sollicitudinem  gerat.”” — 
Rufin. Hist. Lib. 1. c. 6. 


830 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


greater part of middle Italy, all lower Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and 
Corsica.! It has been shown that the Bishop of Rome did not in 
early ages exercise authority in Spain, or Gaul, or Africa, nor even 
over the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia.2 Far less could he have 
had patriarchal rights, in the more distant isles of Britain. And, 
though the Synod of Arles, a.p. 314, speaks of the Bishop of 
Rome as “holding the larger dioceses,” ® which Roman divines 
have construed to mean all the great divisions of the Western 
Empire, yet there is good proof, that the word diocese had before 
this time been assigned to the ordinary provinces of the empire, 
and that it was even used of single episcopal Churches ; so that it 
must by no means be inferred that the Synod of Arles meant to 
speak of the Roman patriarchate as including all the West.4 
Again, it has been’ proved, beyond a question, that the British 
Church was of very early origin: founded as early as, perhaps ear- 
lier than, the Church of Rome.’ It clearly acknowledged no obe- 
dience to the Pope; for, when Augustine met the British bishops, 
and pleaded with them for subjection to Rome, they replied, ‘ that 
they owed no obedience to the Bishop of Rome, but were under 
the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who was 
their overseer under God.” ® They refused too to alter their time 
for keeping Easter, to suit the Roman custom;* and show no 
intention whatever of submitting to papal authority. Indeed, the 
only reasonable claim which the Roman Pontiff can put in, to a 
superiority over our English bishops, is derived from the mission 
of Augustine, a.p. 599. But it is to be observed that, as there 
was already a Church and several bishops in Britain, so there were 
Christians, before his arrival, even among the Saxons; that he 
converted only a small portion of England, namely, Kent, and a few 
adjacent counties ; other parts being converted by Irish and Scots 
missionaries, not sent from Rome; that he did not receive his 
appointment to the see of Canterbury from Gregory the Pope, but 
from Ethelbert the King.® Besides all this, the benefit conferred, 
the Introduction to Soames’s Anglo-Saxon 


Church, where in two pages a summary 
of the evidence for Britain’s early con- 


1 one me ynodicon. Annotat. in Can. 
m. ; Stillingfleet, as above ; 
Bin ham, 1x. i. 9, 10. 


Stillingfleet, Origines Britan. ch. 11. ; 

Bin sham, 1x. i. 11; Dr, Allix (Churches 

of mont, ch. XIII. ) shows, that the dio- 

cese of Milan was independent of Rome 
to the middle of the 11th century. 

8. “Qui majores diwceses tenes.” — 


Jone. Arelatens. 1.; Epist. Synod. Coneil. 
Tom. 1. p. 1426. 
* Bing a tx. i. 12; Palmer, On the 


ἡ, τι. 8. 
$ Stillingfleet, Orig. Britann. ch. 1. See 


version is given. 

® Spelman, Concil. Britan. An. 601, 
Tom. 1. p. 108; Bingham, 1x. i. 11 ; Still: 
pag ch, v., near the end; Bramhall 


x 

P Bede, Hist. Lib. 11.¢. 2, 19; 111, 25; 
v. 16, 22; “ποτ ταν Ibid. 

ὁ See Bramhal Works, 1. 266, 267° 
11. 94, 188, 800. 

® Tbid. 1. 182; Bed. H. Ε. τ. 25. 


sec. III.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 831 


of converting a nation, does not necessarily involve a supreme 
jurisdiction over it. Such a jurisdiction was not conceded by 
the earlier Saxon kings; and if it had been so, a power, which 
did not ‘originate till the seventh century, whereas there had 
been a Church in Great Britain in the first century, cannot be a 
power of that inviolable character, that to throw it off is to separate 
from Christ, and from the communion of Christ’s holy Church. 
We maintain, that Britain and British Churches were not within 
the patriarchal rule of Rome in the earliest ages, nor at the times 
of the four great general Councils. And we deny that, by right of 
conquest, the Bishop of Rome could obtain authority over them, 
since it was to Christ, and not to Gregory, that Augustine was 
sent to conquer the Saxons. We assert therefore that, by claiming 
patriarchal jurisdiction in England, the Roman Patriarch violates 
the eighth Canon of the third general Council, which forbids a 
bishop to intrude into any province which was not under his au- 
thority from the very beginning (ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς). 

If the Pope had been contented to exercise jurisdiction within 
his own patriarchate, and to take precedence of rank over all the 
other bishops of Christendom, without attempting to exercise an 
unwarranted control over bishops and Churches not within the lim- 
its of his own lawful government; it is probable that his privileges 
would never have been objected against, nor his precedence denied 
him. But when he wishes to be sole Vicar of Christ on earth, the 
head of the whole Church, and to be above all earthly power and 
dominion, we believe that he arrogates to himself a title which be- 
longs not to any human being, and claims a power which is only 
Christ’s.? 





Secrion III... 


p will be necessary to give but a small space to the concluding 
paragraphs of this Article. The first is, — 


1 Dr. Barrow, On the Supremacy of the 
Pope, is a complete storehouse of infor- 
mation and argument on this subject. 

Crackanthorp, Defensio Eccl. Anglic. 
ch. XXII. contains an excellent summary 
of arguments. Palmer, On the Church, 
Part vir. has also much information in a 
small compass. For the antiquity and 
independence of the British Churches 


see Usher, De Primord. Eccl. Britan. ; 
Stillingfleet, Origines Britannice ; Bram- 
hall and Bingham, as referred to above; 
Beveridge, Note on v1. Can. of the Ni- 
cene Synod, Tom. 11. Annotat. pp. 51-60 ; 
Hales, Origin and Purity of the British 
Church; Burgess’s Tracts; Williams’s 
Antiquities of the Cymry, &c. 


832 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVI. 


I. “ The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death 
for heinous and grievous offences.” 

The chief arguments against capital punishments in a Christian 
state, must be drawn from general considerations of benevolence, 
and from the evil of taking away from the sinner the time for re- 
pentance. To these may be added our Lord’s cautions against 
revenging ourselves, and His injunctions that we should not resist 
evil (Matt. v. 88, 45, &.). 

On the other side, it is truly said, that punishments inflicted by 
public authority are not for revenge, but for the suppression of 
evil. More benevolence is shown in punishing violence, and so 
repressing it, than in suffering it to prevail. We may not indeed 
altogether reason from Jewish precedent; because the character 
of the Jewish commonwealth was peculiar: and some crimes were 
then visited with capital punishment, which in any other common- 
wealth must be left almost without public condemnation. But, 
before the Law, God gave to Noah acommand, which seems appli- 
cable to the whole human race: ** Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, 
by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God made He 
man” (Gen. ix. 6). And under the Gospel, St. Paul maintains 
the authority of the civil sword. He speaks of the higher powers 
as ordinances of God, forbids Christians to resist them, and, speak- 
ing of the magistrate, says: ‘* He beareth not the sword in vain ; 
for he is the minister of God; a revenger to execute wrath upon 
him that doeth evil” (Rom. xiii. 1-4). 

So then in the patriarchal ages, and under the Gospel, we have 
authority for capital punishments. Whether such sentence should 
be pronounced on any but murderers, or virtual murderers, is an- 
other question. But for murder, at least, there seems full Scrip- 
ture authority, that nations should inflict the punishment of death. 


II. The last paragraph in the Article is: “It is lawful for 
Christian ‘men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear 
weapons and serve in the wars.” 

Tertullian, in his treatise, De Corona Militis, argues against the 
lawfulness of a Christian’s engaging in the military profession.’ 
But in his Apology, he says, that Christians were in the habit of 
enlisting both in the Roman armies and the Roman navies.2. The 
well-known story of “ The Thundering Legion” proves, that, in 
the year 174, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, there were many 


1 De Corond, ο. 11. 
2 Apol. c. 42. See Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 864. 


Sec. 1Π.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 833 


Christians among the imperial troops, even if we hesitate to believe 
that there was a whole Christian legion, or that their prayers 
brought down thunder and rain.1 

When we come to Scripture, we find one or two passages in the 
new Testament which seem to some+persons decisive against the 
lawfulness of war altogether, and therefore against the lawfulness 
of serving in war. They are especially, Matt. v. 38-41, where our 
Lord forbids us to “resist evil,” bidding us turn the left cheek to 
one who smites us on the right; and Matt. xxvi. 52, “ All they 
that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” What applies to 
individuals may be thought equally applicable to societies of indi- 
viduals, and therefore to whole nations. Indeed we may justly 
apply the argument, so far as to say that no Christian nation or 
governor is justified in making war upon a principle of revenge. 
Revenge is an unchristian feeling, and therefore forbidden to nations 
as well as to individuals. Therefore, not only are wars for mere 
glory unquestionably wholesale murder, but wars for any end save 
necessary preservation, and protection of life, liberties, and inde- 
pendence, are clearly against the will-of God, and the spirit of the 
Gospel of Christ. Yet we may press doctrines and passages of 
Scripture so far as to overturn the whole fabric of society. If 
Christian nations may never resist aggression, or defend the weak, 
civilization and religion would be hourly exposed to destruction 
from the invasion of barbarians and unbelievers. In such a case, 
the Gospel would have established the supremacy of the violent 
and the ungodly. 

But He, who in the old Testament repeatedly calls Himself 
‘the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel,” can hardly 
have altogether forbidden just war. John the Baptist, when the 
soldiers inquired of him what they should do to prepare for the 
kingdom of Christ, did not bid them give up serving in the arnaies, 
but required them to do no violence, and to be content with their 
wages (Luke iii. 14). Nowhere in the new Testament is there 
any injunction against the military profession, although our blessed 
Lord and His Apostles are frequently brought into contact with 
soldiers, and are led to speak of war. Thus the centurion, whose 
servant our Lord healed, received high commendation for his faith, 


1 Concerning the Thundering Legion, opposed capital punishments and the law- 
see Mosheim, De Rebus ante Constant. fulness of war; as the Waldenses (see 
Mag. sec. τι. ὃ 17; Lardner, viz. p. Mosheim, Cent. x11. part 11. sect. v. 12) 
488. and the Anabaptists. Mosh. Cent. xv1. 

Many later sects, whose doctrines and sect. 111. pt. 11. ch. 111. 16. 
practices were very rigid, seem to have 

105 


834 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Arr. XXXVIL 


but no rebuke for his vocation (Matt. viii. 5-13). Cornelius, an- 
other centurion, has visions and miracles vouchsafed to him, and 
an Apostle is sent to instruct and baptize him; but no hint is 
given, that he ought to give up serving in the Roman armies after his 
baptism and adoption of the faith (Acts x.). Our Lord and St. 
Paul both refer to the customs of war, as illustrations of the Chris- 
tian’s warfare, and commend the prudence and wisdom of the 
worldly warrior to the imitation of the soldier of the Cross, without 
any reservation or intimation that this world’s warrior is to be con- 
demned for following his calling. (See Luke xiv. 31, 32. 2 Tim. 
ii. 4.) The rebuke to St. Peter, “" They that take the sword shall 
perish with the sword,” was evidently directed against an individ- 
ual’s voluntarily taking on himself to fight ; and also against using 
carnal weapons in a spiritual cause. It is not therefore applicable 
to serving as a soldier, in defence of our country, and at the com- 
mand of the magistrate, who, by God’s own ordinance “ beareth 
the sword,” and “‘is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that 
doeth evil ” (Rom. xiii. 4). 


ARTICLE 


XXXVIIT. 


nine 


Of Christian men’s Goods, which are not 
- common. 


Tue Riches and Goods of Christians 
are not common, as touching the right, 
title, and possession of the same, as cer- 
tain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Not- 
withstanding, every man ought, of such 


De illicita bonorum communieatione. 


Facutrates et bona Christianorum 
non sunt communia, quoad jus et posses- 
sionem (ut quidam Anabaptiste falso 
jactant) debet tamen quisque de his 
quz possidet, pro facultatum ratione, 


things as he possesseth, liberally to give 


pauperibus eleemosynas benigne distri- 
alms to the poor, according to his ability. 


buere. 





ΒΈΟΤΙΟΝ I.— HISTORY. 
([PHERE is no doubt, that the early Christians practised alms- 


giving and sacrifice of their own wealth for the Church and 
the poor, to an extent unknown in our days There are indeed 
passages in the Apologies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, which 
appear at first sight as if there were in the early ages a complete 
community of goods. The former speaks of Christians as having 
formerly placed their greatest pleasure in acquiring wealth and 
possessions, "" but now bringing all that they have into a common 
stock, and imparting to every one in need.” ! The latter says, 
ςς We, who are united in mind and soul, hesitate not to have our 
possessions in common. With us all things are in common but 
our wives.” ? But, that they did not mean a real community of 
goods, appears from an earlier passage in the same chapter: ‘* Even 
if there be with us a sort of treasury, no sum is therein collected 
discreditable to religion, as though she were bought. Every man 
places there a small gift on one day of the month, or whenever he 
wills, so he be but willing and able; for no man is constrained, 
but contributes willingly.” ® It is plain that, where there were 
collections, according as n en were able and willing, there could be 
no true community of goods. Clement of Alexandria wrote his 
tract, Quis Dives Salvetur, to prove, that it was not the design of 
the Gospel that all men should reject the possessions with which 
Providence had blessed them. It was one of the errors attributed 


1 Justin M. Apol. 1. p. 61, B. 2 Tertull. Apol. 39. 3 Thid. 


8:6 OF CHRISTIAN MEN’S GOODS, [Arr. XXXVIIL 


to the Pelagians, “that a rich man must sell all that he has, or 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”! But, that this was 
not a precept of universal obligation, St. Augustine argues against 
them at great length.? ‘Several early sects are mentioned, as hav- 
ing forbidden possessions, and denied salvation to those who had 
wealth, — as the Apostolici;* and the Eustathians, who for this and 
other errors were condemned by the Council of Gangra.* Persons, 
who adopted such opinions, were called by the fathers Apotactite.5 
The fact, that they were esteemed heretics, shows that the Church 
repudiated and condemned their peculiarities. 

Some very zealous Christians in all-ages have felt personally 
bound to relinquish their wealth, and devote themselves to a volun- 
tary poverty ; and with them may be classed the mendicant orders, 
and indeed all those religious communities which have required 
vows of poverty from their numbers. This, however, is a different 
view of things from that condemned in the Article. The Article 
refers to the belief that all property is unlawful, and that goods in 
a Christian society must be common. This is a tenet which has 
only been adopted, whether in primitive or later ages, by certain 
fanatical sects ; and it is here especially spoken of as an error of 
the Anabaptists. With them the doctrine was a source, not so 
much of personal self-denial, as of efforts to subvert civil govern- 
ment and the whole framework of society ; and it was not therefore 
to be treated as an innocent enthusiasm, but to be denounced as 
a dangerous error.® 





Sxcrion II.—SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


A GREAT many passages from the new Testament might be 

brought to prove the danger of riches; and some few of our 
Lord’s own sayings seem even to enjoin on His followers a re- 
nunciation of worldly wealth. Such are Matt. v. 42; vi. 19; 
Luke xvi. 19-25; 1 Tim. vi. 9,10; James νυν. 1. The two most 
remarkable, however, are Matt. xix. 21, where the young man is 
bidden to sell all that he has, and give to the poor; and Luke xii. 
83, where our Saviour, addressing His disciples generally, says, 


1 Augustin. Zp, 156, Tom. 11. p. 542. * Bevereg. Synod. Tom, 1. p. 415. 
8 7 157, Tom. ts 553-559. See 5 See Bingham, xvr. xii. 1. 
also Wall, On Infant ism, pt. 1. ch. ® See an account of their doctrines 
xix. Vol. τ, p. 896. Oxf. 1836. and proceedings, Mosheim, 2. H. Cent. 
® August. Her. 40; Epiphan. Her. xvt. sect. 111. pt. τι. ch. rt. δ, &e. 
LX1, Apostol. 


‘ 


SEc. IL] WHICH ARE NOT COMMON. 837 


“Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags 
which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not,” &c. 
The former passage (Matt. xix. 21) has been considered at some 
length under Art. XIV.! The other (Luke xii. 33) appears to me 
the strongest argument from Scripture in favour of their opinion 
who think that every sincere follower of Jesus Christ should divest 
himself of all his personal possessions, and embrace a. voluntary 
and strict poverty. We must take heed how we weaken and 
dilute injunctions of our Saviour, especially when they cross our 
natural propensities. Yet we must not explain one passage of 
Scripture so as to make it contrary to other passages of Scripture. 
Our Lord tells us in another place, that, if a man “ hate not his 
father and mother, and wife and children, and his own life also, 
he cannot be His disciple’? (Luke xiv. 26). Such a declaration, 
pressed to its utmost limits, would make us “ without natural 
affection,” (a mark of heathen reprobation, Rom. i. 31,) and would: 
even lead us to break the fifth commandment. And so of the 
passage in question ; though in its most literal and general appli- 
cation it would not lead to consequences so serious as this, yet it 
would, so interpreted, make it impossible for us to provide for 
those of our own house, which St. Paul tells us would be a proof 
that we had denied the faith and had become worse than infidels 
(1 Tim. v. 8). It is probable therefore, that we must consider our 
blessed Saviour’s exhortation as rather addressed to. His immediate 
followers, who could only follow Him in His wanderings, and 
preach His Gospel in the world, by utter abandonment of houses 
and possessions, than as applicable to all His disciples through all: 
ages of the Church. And, even if we pressed His words to their 
utmost length, they would merely be an injunction to individuals to 
renounce their wealth, not a rule binding on society, that private 
wealth should be confiscated, and only a public fund permitted to 
exist. 

In favour of that view, the only tenable argument is drawn 
from the early chapters of the Acts; where we read that the first 
believers ‘* had all things in common, and sold their possessions and 
goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need” (Acts 
ii. 44, 45) ; that the multitudes of them that believed were of one 
heart and one soul, neither said any of them that ought of the 
things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things 
common (Acts iv. 32; compare 34-37). This self-devotion of the 


primitive Christians affords indeed a most instructive example for 
1 See above, p. 844. 


838 OF CHRISTIAN MEN’S GOODS, [Arr. XXXVIIL 


all succeeding generations. It sprang from an intense feeling of 
love and gratitude to the Saviour; and whilst it was fervent and 
enthusiastic, it was reasonable and necessary. Had there not been 
self-sacrifice among the rich, what would have become of the poor 
of the flock, whose name was, for Christ’s sake, cast out as evil ? 
But even at this very time we find the right of the owners to their 
property fully recognized in the Scriptures and by the Apostles, so 
as abundantly to show that no absolute community of goods had 
been exacted. The very fact that it is written, “No man said 
that ought of the things which he possessed was his own,” shows 
that the possessions were acknowledged to be theirs by others, 
though voluntarily renounced by themselves; and that therefore it 
was a voluntary renunciation, and not made according to an obli- 
gation imposed on them by the Church. Also, St. Peter said to 
Ananias: “ Whilst it remained, was it not thine own? and after it 
was sold, was it not in thine own power?” (Acts v. 4). So that, 
‘before the property was sold, the Apostle acknowledged that it was 
of right the property of Ananias ; and even after it was sold, there 
was no necessity upon him to give it up to the Apostles. His sin 
was, not in the retaining of his goods, but’in pretending to give 
all, and yet keeping back a part. 

There are numerous injunctions to provide for our families 
(Acts xx. 85. 2 Cor. xii. 14. 1 Tim. v. 8),— to give alms (Matt. 
vi.1; x. 42), -- ἰο make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness 
(Luke xvi. 9),—to lay by in store as God prospers us, and then to 
give (1 Cor. xvi. 2),—to feed the hungry and clothe the naked 
(Matt. xxv. 35, &e. ),— to call the maimed, the lame, and the blind 
‘to our feasts (Luke xiv. 13), — to do good as we have opportunity 
(Gal. vi. 10),— to distribute to the necessity of the saints (Rom. xii. 
13), — to give with a willing mind (2 Cor. viii. 12), not grudgingly 
or of necessity, as knowing that God loveth a cheerful giver 
(2 Cor. ix. 7), — to be given to hospitality (Rom. xii. 13) — to use 
‘hospitality one to another without grudging (1 Pet. iv. 9). All 
these precepts, whilst they impose the strongest obligations to 
abundant and most liberal almsgiving, yet presuppose the existence 
of distinct possessions, and of different ability to give in the differ- 
ent members of the Church. If all things were common, the grace 
and duty of giving from our own private means would thereby have 
‘become impossible. So again, the recognized distinction between 
master and servant, the one being enjoined to be just and liberal, the 
other honest and obedient, proves the difference of condition and the 
possession of property (Eph. vi. 5-9. Col. iv. 1. Philem. 10-20). 


Sc. IL] WHICH ARE NOT COMMON. 939 


Especially, where the Apostles address the rich, and bid them to 
be rich in good works and bountiful to others, they clearly show, 
that there may be rich men in the Christian community, and that 
such may fulfil their Christian obligations, and lay up a good foun- 
dation for the future by giving liberally, though they do not sell all 
that they have. For example: “ Charge them that are rich in this 
world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches - 
. . . that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to 
~ distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for them- 
selves a good foundation against the time to come” (1 Tim. vi. 
17-19). ‘* Whoso hath this world’s goods, and seeth his brother 
have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how 
dwelleth the love of God in him?” (1 John iii. 17). “To de 
good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God 
is well pleased” (Heb. xiii. 16). ; 

Thus then Scripture plainly confirms the teaching of the Church, 
that ‘‘ the goods of Christian men are not common as touching the 
right, title, and possession of the same:” but yet that every man, 
as a follower of Christ, has the most cogent and inevitable obliga- 
tion, “ liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.” 


ARTICLE XXXIX. 


--ς---- 


Of a Christian man’s Oath. 


As we confess that vain and rash 
Swearing is forbidden Christian men by 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his 
Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Re- 
ligion doth not prohibit, but that a man 
may swear when the Magistrate requir- 
eth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it 
be done according to the Prophet’s teach- 
ing, in justice, judgment, and truth. 


De Jurejurando, 


QuEMADMODUM juramentum yanu 
et temerarium a Domino nostro Jesu 
Christo, et Apostolo ejus Jacobo, Chris- 
tianis hominibus interdictum esse, fate- 
mur : ita Christianorum religionem min- 
ime prohibere censemus, quin jubente 
magistratu in causa fidei et charitatis ju- 
rare liceat, modo id fiat juxta Prophets 
doctrinam, in justitia, in judicio et veri- 
tate. 





Secrion I.— HISTORY. 


HEN the early Christians were called on to swear before 
heathen magistrates, they were mostly required to use idol- 


atrous oaths. 


These were naturally abhorred by them, and per- 


haps inclined them to a dread of swearing altogether, even more 


than Scripture would inculcate. 
nothing of perjury, since it is unlawful even to swear.”?! 


Thus Tertullian says, “I say 
Yet 


from a passage in his Apology we find that Christians did not 
refuse to take lawful oaths ; though idolatrous oaths they, of neces- 
sity, rejected. Christians, he says, would not swear by the Emper- 
or’s genii; for the genii were demons; but by the safety of the 
Emperor they were willing to swear.? The same swearing by the 
safety of the Emperor (ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου Αὐγού- 
στου Κωνσταντίου) is mentioned by Athanasius.? Vegetius, who 
lived about A. p. 390, says, the Christian soldiers ‘* swore by God, 
and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the majesty of the Emperor.” 4 
Nay! Athanasius required of Constantius that his accusers should 
be put upon their oath. And much more has been alleged, in 


1“ 'Taceo de perjurio, quando ne ju- 
rare quidem liceat.’? — De Idol. c. 11. 

2 “Sed et juramus, sicut non per ge- 
nios Cwsarum, ita per salutem eorum, que 
est augustior omnibus geniis. Nescitis 

nios demonas dici ? &c.”” — Apol. ς. 32. 

other examples of the like objec- 
tion, ap. Bingham, xvt. vii. 7. 
8 Epist. ad Monach. Tom. 1. p. 866. 


ὁ “Jurant autem per Deum, et per 
Christum, et per Spiritum Sanctum, et 
per majestatem imperatoris.”” — Veget. 
Institutio Ret Militaris. See Lardner, v111. 
p. aa Cave, Prim. Christ, pt. 111. ch. 1. 

5 Athanas. Apol. ad Constantium, Tom. 
1, p. 678. : 


Sec. II] OF A CHRISTIAN MAN’S OATH. 841 


proof that the early Christians did not refuse legitimate oaths in 
‘egal inquiries. 

There was, however, doubtless, much scruple on the subject of 
swearing among the ancients generally. Clement of Alexandria 
says, the enlightened Christian will never perjure himself. And 
so he considers it an indignity for a Christian to be put upon oath, 
as disparaging his fidelity ; and that he will avoid swearing, saying 
only Yea and Nay.! And Lactantius says, that a Christian will 
never perjure himself, lest he mock God ; nor indeed will he swear 
at all, lest he fall by accident, or carelessly, into perjury.” 

Against idle swearing, swearing by the creatures, and perjury, 
the primitive Church was very severe. And it does indeed ap- 
pear, that some of the fathers, led by the strong language of Matt. 
v. 84, and James v. 12, doubted even the lawfulness of oaths at all; 
thinking that they may have been permitted to Jews, but forbidden 
to Christians. The Pelagians took up, as one of their positions, 
that a man must not swear at all.6 But Augustine replied, in an 
epistle cited in the last Article. There he enjoins to avoid swear- 
ing as much as possible ; but shows that, in cases of necessity, there 
was Scriptural ground for it.® 

- In later ages, the Waldenses,’ the Anabaptists,® the Quakers, 
and some other sects, have held all oaths unlawful. It is against 
the Anabaptists probably, that this Article, as well as the last, is 
specially directed. 





Srecrion II. —SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


is probably an admitted fact that oaths were lawful under the 

old Testament. This Article refers toa passage in the Prophet 
Jeremiah (iv. 2): ‘“* Thou shalt swear, The Lorp liveth, in truth, 
in judgment, and in righteousness.” The only prohibition was 
against false swearing, or swearing by false gods.? It seems likely 


1 Stromat. v11. 8, p. 861. Potter. 

2 « Hic non pejerabit, ne Deum ludib- 
rio habeat; sed ne jurabit quidem; ne 
quando, vel necessitate, vel consuetudine, 
in perjurium cadat.” — Lactant. Epitome, 
c. 6. 

ὃ Bingham, xvi. vii. 5-8. 

* So Chrysostom, Homil. xv. in Gene- 
sin: Homil. v111.in Act.; Theodoret. Jn 
ie iv. Jeremie; Theophyl. Jn cap. v. 

atth., &e. See Suicer, s. v. ὅρκος, Tom. 
τι. p. 510. 


106 


5 Augustin. Opp. Tom. 11. p. 542. 

6 Epist. 157, Tom. τι. p. 559. The 
opinions of the primitive Christians on 
swearing are fully discussed by Cave, 
Prim. Christianity, pt. 111. ch. 1. p. 212; 
and Bingham, xvi. vii. See also Suicer, 
as above. 

7 Mosheim, Cent. x11. pt. 11. ch. v. 12, 

8 Ibid. Cent. xvi. sect. 111. pt. 11. ch. 
111. 16. 

9 The Third Commandment is prob- 
ably a prohibition of perjury. “ Thou 


842 OF A CHRISTIAN MAN’S OATH. [Anrt. XXXIX 


that the Jews somewhat abused this permission, and were rather 
free in their use of oaths, and of the name of the Almighty on 
trivial occasions. Accordingly some strict and ascetic sects among 
them were led to the opposite extent of refusing to take an oath 
under any circumstances! If the Jews were thus profane. and 
careless in swearing, we can readily see the object of our Saviour’s 
denunciation of rash oaths. There are obvious and very great dan- 
gers in a habit of this kind. If, on every trivial occasion, we have 
recourse to an oath for attestation, it will almost necessarily follow, 
that we shall lightly regard an ordinary assertion, and that the 
sanctity of an oath itself will be less revered. Hence such swear- 
ing must foster a spirit of untruthfulness. And again, the readily 
bringing into common conversation the most sacred name of God, 
must necessarily lead to irreverence and impiety. What can be 
more alien from the-spirit of the Gospel, than these two habits of 
falsehood and irreverence ? 

Now it seems very apparent, that it is this evil habit which our 
Lord condemns. The Jews appear to have satisfied themselves, 
that they might swear as much as they chose, if they did not for- 
swear themselves. But our Lord, enforcing the spirit, not merely 
the letter, of the commandment, tells them not to swear at all; 
and enjoins that, in their common discourse, they should only say 
yea and nay; as more than this can come only from the evil 
one ; Ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν val val, od οὔ" τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ 
τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν (Matt. v. 87). The very words used, and the 
whole tenor of the passage, show that it is to common conversation 
that the precept applies. St. James’s words (James v. 12) are 80. 
nearly a repetition of our Lord’s, that the former must be inter- 
preted by the latter. 

So far then we see the great evil of profane swearing, and 
of solemn asseverations on unimportant occasions. All such are 
strictly forbidden by, and thoroughly opposed to, the Gospel of 
Christ. 

But, on solemn and important occasions, and especially in courts of 
justice, we have new Testament authority for believing that oaths 
are lawful to Christians as well as to Jews. Our Lord Himself 
was adjured by the High Priest, and, instead of refusing to plead 
shalt not lift up the name of the Lorp thy a falsehood.” Some interpret it as the 
God to falsehood,” i. 6. Thou shalt not LXX., ἐπὶ ματαίῳ, for a light and vain 
swear falsely by Him. “ To take or lift purpose. But μιγνὴ is constantly used of 


up the name of God” is unquestionably τ χὰ 
to swear by His name. The word Ὁ ΗΟ ates ee 


“to vanity,” most probably means “for ἢ Joseph. De B. J. Lib. τι. ο. 12. 


Sec. ΠῚ OF A CHRISTIAN MAN’S OATH. 848 


to such an adjuration, He answered immediately.'. This one ar- 
gument seems a host in itself. Our Lord consented to be put upon 
His oath. Oaths therefore before a civil tribunal cannot be forbid- 
den to His disciples. St Paul frequently, in very weighty matters, 
calls God to witness, which is essentially taking an oath. See 
Rom. ix. 1. 1 Cor. xv. 31. 2 Cor. i. 18, 23; xi. 10, 31; xii. 19. 
Gal. i. 20. Phil. i. 8. This is St. Augustine’s argument against 
the Pelagians ; though he says truly, that we must not swear care- 
lessly, because St. Paul swore when there was good reason for 
swearing. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (iii. 11; vi. 16, 
17), the Almighty is represented as swearing ; and, in the latter 
passage, the Apostle compares God’s swearing with the swearing 
common among men, saying, ‘ Men verily swear by the greater ; 
and an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife ”’ (Heb. vi. 16). 
With this we ought to compare Matt. xxiii. 16-22. See also 
Rev. x. 6. 

Weighing then, all that has been said above, very strong as our 
Lord’s and St. James’s language against oaths may be, it yet 
seems impossible to doubt, that it is directed against vain, trivial, 
and thoughtless swearing, but not against that legal confirming of 
the truth by a solemn attestation in the sight of God, which was 
commanded in the Law of Moses, which our blessed Saviour Him- 
self submitted to before Caiaphas, and which the example of the 
Apostles, and their general language on the subject, seem not only 
to permit, but to sanction also, if not to enjoin. In short, profane 
swearing is altogether forbidden to Christians ; but religious attes- 
tation upon oath seems to be acquiesced in as necessary, and admit- 


ted as lawful. 


1 The high-priest (Matt. xxvi. 63,64) on his oath, in the most solemn possible 
said ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος : manner. 
a form equivalent to putting a witness 


‘ 


t ἂν» 
“re ᾿ 
oe 





FEW PRINCIPAL FATHERS, 


CATALOGUE 


OF A 


COUNCILS, ETC. 


WITH THEIR PROBABLE DATES. 


Clemens Romanus . 
Ignatius 

Polycarp 

Papias 

Justin Martyr 
Irenzus 


Clemens ΤΆΔ ΕΒ : 


Tertullian . 

Origen . 
Cyprian. . 
Lactantius 
Eusebius of Cesarea . 
Council of Nice. 1. 
Athanasius 

Cyril of Jerusalem 
Hilary of Poictiers 
Basil of Caesarea . 
Gregory Nazianzen 
Gregory Nyssen 


First Council of Cosmiailinopls 7; 


Epiphanius 
Ambrose 

Jerome ᾿ 
John Chrysostom 
Augustine 

Cyril of inane 
Isidore of Pelusium 
Theodoret . 4 


Hilary of Arles 





Council of Ephesus. III. . 


Vincentius Lirinénsis 


A.D. 
. 70 al. 96 
« 107 
. 108 
i whe 
. 147 
. 180 
. 194 
«| 200 
, . 230 
iy 
. 806 
o “aed 
. 825 
. 850 
. 850 
. 850 
. 870 
. 80 
Ὁ 
ἐν 2 > ee 
: Σ ᾿ ; . 874 
oo BRI 
. 890 
. 898 
‘ : : . 898 
τ : Α - 412 


. . . . 412: 
. . . . 423 
. . - ° . 424 
. 481 
. 484 


84. CATALOGUE OF FATHERS, ETC. 


Prosper of Aquitaine . . "tied . . . . 440 
Sozomen . ‘ P ‘ ‘ ° . . ᾿ ° . 440 
Leo I. Pope : Ε ° . . . . . ὃ . 440 
Council of Chaleedon. IV. : ‘ . , , ° - 451 
Gelasius. Pope . . ° ‘ . Pipes ὃ - 492 
Second Council of thesesilanaas Υ. . . . ° . 553 
Gregory the Great. Pope . . ον νιν ον . . . 590 
Third Council of en ee, VI. ς . ° . - 681 


Venerable Bede . ‘ ; ξ : i ; 5 . 701 
Joannes Damascenus . ᾿ Ξ Α : : A 3 >: ta 
Paschasius Radbert 4 ὃ ; ; = = Ξ é . 840 
Ratramn or Bertram . Α : ᾿ ᾿ 5 Ἔ . 840 
ZElfric, Archbishop of Canterbury Ξ . Ξ ‘ ‘ . 980 
Berengarius .. - . . . . . - 1050 
Theophylact . : : . . . . . . ‘ 1077 
Bernard of Clairvaux ‘ ‘ ; ῷ Ξ Σ : . 1115 
Peter Lombard . : ee Ξ 5 x ° : 1141 
Thomas Aquinas . i τ . ὁ ° . 1255 


Council of Constance . ae 2 ; J ᾿ 1414 - 1418 
Council of Basil ; ς ἐσ ; . Ἐ 5 1481 ἰο 1448 
Council of Florence A Η ν ᾿ 4 > ‘ ‘ 1439 
Martin Luther . Η ; : ; ὃ ὲ " : - 41517 
Council of Trent . . ° Pe ° ° . 1545 to 1563 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


pone eee 


Absolution, see Sacraments, 592, &e. . .. 
Excommunication, 770, ἄς. ... Consecra- 
tion of Bishops, 790 and note. 

Anthropomorphites, heresy of the, 19 
Scripturally refuted, 35. 

Apocrypha, see Scriptures Holy, 188, &c. 

Articles, see Reformation, 12-17... and 
under individuai Artt. passim. 

Ascension of Christ, predicted, related, 
and importance of typically declared, 
in Scripture, 108, 109. See also Resur- 
rection. 

Baptism, Art. xxvit. 619-682. Difference 
of opinion as to whether regeneration 
is the grace of baptism, never separated 
from it unless in case of impenitent 
recipients ...a difference not wholly 
owing to different views of predestina- 
tion, 619,620. Baptism an embracing 
the service of God; natural expecta- 
tion therefore that He would furnish 
us with strength for it— Covenant of 
grace made by God, in Christ, with 
man — terms given us — baptism for- 
mal act of admission into covenant... 
and the engrafting also into the 
Church: 620, 621. Baptism guaran- 
tees a spiritual change, but a moral 
change must be the result of the soul’s 
profiting by the spiritual change — 
Hooker, Waterland, Bethell; (note) — 
Term “ Baptismal Regeneration” war- 
ranted — yet baptized persons may be 
practically unregenerate — Absence of 

ractical results accounted for: 622- 
624 (and 626). Relative holiness of 
baptized persons, even when not per- 
sonally sanctified, 624, 625. Different 
cases of adult (625) and infant recip- 
ients, 625-627. 

Scriptural evidence for truth of doc- 
trine, as here defined, of Baptism, 628- 
648. Light on the subject from old 
Testament, and Jewish rites and lan- 
guage — Circumcision — Baptism of 
proselytes — types of baptism: 628- 
630. Baptism considered as admitting 
us to a covenant — difference between 
Mosaic covenant of works and Chris- 
tian covenant of grace — Questions 
and answers at baptisnr — Promises 
made therein by God: 630-635. Bap- 
tism considered as admitting to the 
Church, which is the Body of Christ, 
the Family of God, the Kingdom of 


Heaven, the Temple of the Holy Ghost, 
635-638. Regeneration, the special 
grace of Baptism... identified with 
conversion or renovation among the 
Zuinglians and Calvinists, still more 
among the Arminians . . . consequent- 
ly denied by them to exist except in 
such as have attained to a state of true 
sanctification ... A figurative term... 
has been variously applied in various 
languages... glowing language of the 
fathers might make it easy to suppose 
regeneration certainly involved sancti- 
fication of heart — Schoolmen followed 
their language to its consequences — 
Original signification of ‘“ regenera- 
tion’ thus became augmented — Re- 
generation, twofold signification of, as 
used either of the time of bestowal of 
new-creating grace, or of the time of 
hearty reception of it — Scripture pas- 
sages seeming to differ thus reconciled : 
638-642. Objections considered (and 
answered) drawn from hypothesis of 
regeneration being equivalent to moral 
change ... from high Calvinistic views 
of irresistibility and indefectibility of 
grace... from alleged undue substi- 
tution of baptism for faith... from 
supposed inconsistency of any grace 
before baptism with gift of regenera- 
tion in baptism ... from disparage- 
ment of outward ordinances — Diffi- 
culty from difference of result of gift 
of God’s Spirit in Baptism, best ac- 
knowledged insoluble by us; not 
solved in Scripture : 642-648. 
General view of Baptismal Regenera- 
tion held by the Fathers: that conver- 
sion of heart did not accompany bap- 
tism when unworthily received or not 
duly profited by, but that remission of 
sins and the grace of the Spirit were 
promised to accompany baptism, and 
that that grace, if yielded to and cul- 
tivated, would regenerate the soul; 
hence they assigned the name of regen- 
eration to that Sacrament, and some- 
times spoke as if regeneration were 
tied to it, yet when explaining them 
selves accurately showed that they did 
not hold that the Sacrament worked 
ex opere operato: Quotations, ἕο. in 
proof, from Apostolic fathers down tc 
Augustine — difference between him 


~~ eS a ee 


848 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


and Calvin : 648-660. Council of Trent 
—Luther; Zuingle; Calvin — Eng- 
lish Reformers — Cranmer and Rid- 
ley — Formularies and views of the 
Church of England — Anglican Bap- 
tismal Services formed on the Luther- 
an model: 661-677. 

Infant Baptism (subject partly antic- 
ipated) arguments for, from Scripture 
and from Jewish analogies, 674-680. 
Evidence from fathers, giving every 
reason to believe it practised from the 
very first, 680-682. See Sacraments, 
Sin Original, &e. 

Both Kinds, Art. xxx. p. 738. No pa- 
tristic authority for withdrawing the 
cup from the laity ; this acknowledged 
by the more candid Roman Catholics 
— express patristic testimony, and lan- 
guage of ancient liturgies, show that 
in the early ages both elements were 
administered alike to clergy and laity, 
and ministered separately, not by dip- 
ping the bread in the cup, a custom 
introduced by superstition, and still 
continuing in the Eastern Churches 
— Withholding of the cup connected 
with transubstantiation ... greatly com- 
plained of by early Reformers. . . es- 
tablished by Council of Constance, and 
Council of Trent... rejected by all 
Reformed Churches: 788-740. Script- 
ural proof of the doctrine of this Art. 
— Serious question as to the validity 
of the mutilated Sacrament; though 
receivers in faith and ignorance may 
receive the full blessing : 740-743. 

Calvinism, the five points of, see Predesti- 
nation, 408, ἢ. 

Canon of Scripture, see Scriptures Holy, 
153, &e. 

Canonization, Romish, see Purgator, , 544. 

Capital Punishments, see Civil Magis- 
trates, 832. 

Church, the, distinct definition of, espe- 
cially called for at the Reformation, 
453, (459, 460.) Church, how described 
and spoken of by the Fathers, 453- 
457... their statements mostly not 
logically definitive, but practical and 
devotional, 457. Church not exactly 
defined, though distinguished by titles, 
in the Creeds, 457, 458... called Cath- 
oli- in all the Creeds, and through- 
out the writings of the Fathers — prob- 
able origin and subsequent usage of 
the term ; 458. Catholicity perilled by 
schism between Eastern and Western 
Churches, and yet more by gradual 
corruption in Western Church, 458, 
459. Difliculties attendant on separa- 
tion of foreign Reformers from Church 
of Rome ; the part of our own Reform- 
ers less difficult, 459. Church, defini- 
tions of, by foreign and English Re- 
formers — Our Art. x1x. confined to 


consideration of the visible Church— 
no special allusion in our formularies 
to distinction of visible and invisible 
Church: 460-468. Church of Rome 
in grievous error, yet still a (corrupt 
indeed) branch of the Universal Church 
of Christ — Views of Reformers on this 
subject : 463-467. Scriptural meaning 
of Church investigated, 467-469. Script- 
ural proof of statements of Art. xIx., 
that the Church is a visible body of be- 
lievers (this not inconsistent with belief 
of existence of the invisible Church) 
... that in it the pure word of God is 
held and preached . . . and the Sacra- 
ments duly ministered according to 
Christ’s ordinance : 469-474. A min- 
istry included in the definition of this 
Art. (see Art. xxx111.) 474-476. What 
defectiveness in ordination, &c. is de- 
structive of Church-existence in other 
communions, not decided by the Eng- 
lish Church, 476. Errors of Church 
of Rome; novelties and heterodoxies 
in Creed of Pope Pius IV., or of the 
Council of Trent, 476, 477. 


Church, authority of the, Art. xx. 478. 


Disputes concerning first clause of this 
Art. — one) portion however of it ex- 
pressed, Art. xxx1y., the other vir- 
tually contained in latter part of this: 
478, 479, (482.) Church- Authority, 
views of the Fathers respecting . . . of 
the Reformers in general... of the 
English Reformers: 479-482. Script- 
ural proof that the Church is a wit- 
ness and keeper of Holy Writ, 482... 
has power to decree rites and cere- 
monies, 484, 485... has authority in 
controversies of faith, 485-487. Such 
authority, however, judicial, not legis- 
lative — Limitations assigned to it in 
the Art.: 487-489. Private Judgment, 
rightly understood, not interfered with 
by this Art. 489, n. 


Civil Magistrates, Art. xxxvu. 792 


Supremacy of the Crown, 793-808. The 
proper relation between the civil and 
ecclesiastical powers in a Christian 
commonwealth, a most difficult ques- 
tion — Direct antagonism for the first 
three hundred years between the 
Church and the world — Christians 
from the first obedient subjects in 
things compatible with religion, but 
kept aloof, as far as possible, from 
heathenism: 798. Revolution pro- 
duced by accession and conversion 
of Constantine, and his removal of seat 
of empire to Byzantium — Constan- 
tine, though unable to assume a sacer- 
dotal function in the Christian Church 
(as heathen Emperors had done in 
heathen Rome), yet claims a peculiar 
supremacy in it — Henceforward the 
Church, though never endowed by the 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


State, yet receives protection for its 
revenues — Christian princes ever con- 
sidered themselves its protectors, and 
in some sense its governors — Cler- 
ical rights — Imperial exercise of 
power in Ecclesiastical matters, and 
influence in the Church ... greater 
in the East, because there was the seat 
xi government; consequent degener- 
acy (there is little doubt) of Eastern 
Church: 794, 795. Different state of 
things in the West, especially from 
absence of seat of government — 
Power of the clergy from their posi- 
tion, rights, &c. — Churchmen of the 
fourth century opposed the only avail- 
able barrier to imperial tyranny — 
The Church subsequently the one 
great antagonist of feudal oppression : 
795-797. Bishop of Rome, from the 
earliest times the most important prel- 
ate in the West... derived additional 
importance from many causes... the 
most important person in the city in 
the absence of the Emperor — By de- 
grees primacy became supremacy — 
Rome the civil centre of Europe, the 
ecclesiastical centre of Christian Eu- 
rope— Power of the Pope a happy 
counterpoise to that of sovereigns ; the 
Church as an united body disposed to 
look to one visible head — Evil conse- 
quences of this, yet not all evil — Pa- 
pal authority, not merely spiritual, but 
political ; becomes an intolerable tyr- 
anny — grievances felt by bishops, 
and still more by kings: 797-799. 
The Reformation a reaction from 
this state of things, as well as a throw- 
ing off corruptions of faith .. . viewed 
by different persons according to their 
respective feelings and interests. — 
Proceedings of, and under, Henry VIII. 
— ‘Head of the Church” ascribed to 
him as a title — Opposition to such 
ascription—contests and different opin- 
ions as to meaning of the term — 
Cranmer’s exposition of it — The title 
offensive to many... after abolition 
by Mary not restored by Elizabeth — 
“ Government”’ thenceforward substi- 
tuted for ‘ Headship” — Authorized 
formularies (especially this Art.) of 
Elizabeth’s reign explanatory of the 
meanings attached to this authority: 
799-802. Convocation in reign of 
James I. agree on Canons of 1603. — 
Principle therein enunciated, present 
charter of union between Church and 
State, this: that the sovereign is en- 
titled to the ancient privileges of de- 
yout princes in Scripture, of Christian 
Emperors in primitive times, and of 
ancient sovereigns of England before 
the times of Papal domination. This 
claim should seem both scriptural and 


107 


849 


catholic — Objections urged, from dis- 
similarity of the Jewish National to 
the Christian Catholic Church ; from 
sacredness attached to Jewish Kings, 
distinctively, as God’s special vicege- 
rents ; from the evil consequences to 
the Church of the influence of the 
Christian Emperors, and of the con- 
nection of religion with the State... 
and answered: 802-805. Supremacy 
of the sovereign almost necessarily fol- 
lows from recognition of the propriety 
of a connection between Church and | 
State, and simultaneous denial of Pa- 
pal supremacy — The sovereign un- 
dertakes nothing belonging to the of 
fice of the ministers of Christ, but in 
matters of external polity claims the 
right of legislation; willingly allowed 
by us — Supremacy of the Crown not 


- arbitrary ; everything in England lim- 


ited by law — No small difficulty of late 
arising and increasing from the suprem- 
acy becoming virtually a supremacy 
of Parliament, which unhappily is not 
a supremacy of the laity of the Church 
of England — Speculations on the fu- 
ture vain ; true hope, and real dangers, 
of the Church : 806-808. Supremacy 
of the Bishop of Rome, 809-831. Most 
extensive and important subject, 809. 
Alleged grounds on which the claim 
of supreme authority rests: I. That 
supremacy over the universal Church 
was given to St. Peter — Answered ; 
a certain priority among the Apostles 
readily admitted. . . but not as involvy- 
ing primacy of power, or preéminence 
of jurisdiction ; Scriptural proofs and 
patristic statements in opposition to 
claim of supremacy ; passages of Scrip- 
ture alleged in favour. of the claim 
shown not towarrant the Romanist con- 
clusion ; patristic testimonies against 
correctness of the Romanist interpreta- 
tion; nothing more fairly to be made 
of the case than that St. Peter was 
primus inter pares: 809-818. II. That 
St. Peter was Bishop of Rome — An- 
swered; an early tradition indeed that 
he was so, but this on historical inves- 
tigation found to have very slender 
foundation — The question decided in 
the negative on examination of Scrip- 
ture passages and patristic statements 
—No good reason to doubt that St. 
Peter was at Rome, but no reason to 
believe that he was ever in any prop- 
er sense Bishop of Rome: 818-823. 
Ill. That St. Peter’s supremacy is in- 
herited by his successors, the Bishops 
of Rome — Answered ; the two preced- 
ing positions being disproved, this 
must fall with them; but farther, 
whatever priority St. Peter had among 
the Apostles was personal, not official 


850 


— Supremacy of Rome not admitted 
at first ; its rise and progress traceable, 
and easily accounted for; historical 
confirmation of this view of the case : 
828-828. Special ground om which 
the Pope claims jurisdiction in Eng- 
land; 7. e. that England was in the 
Patriarchate of Rome — Questions as 
to rise of Patriarchates, and extent of 
the Roman Partriarchate—Good proof 
that in early ages it did not comprise 
Britain — British Church moreover of 
very early origin, and acknowledging 
no obedience to the Pope — A Church 
in Britain, and Christians also among 
the Saxons, before the mission of Au- 
gustine, from which only the Pope can 
put in any reasonable claim to supe- 
riority over English Bishops — More- 
over, even conversion of a nation 
would not necessarily involve supréme 
jurisdiction over it— Claim to such a 
jurisdiction over Britain on the part 
of the Bishop of Rome unfounded and 
uncanonical, and rejection of it not 
schismatic . 8 31. 

Capital Punishments, not universally 
unlawful ; lawfulness of, Scriptural au- 
thority for: 882. Wars, serving 
in, at the commandment of the Magis- 
trate, lawfulness of, allowed by early 
Christians, and proved from Scripture, 
and condemnation of all war shown to 
be unfounded, 832-834. 

Commemoration, bare, in the Eucharist ; 
a view of Zuingle, see Lord’s Supper, 

Confirmation, see Sacraments, 590. 

Consecration of Bishops and Ministers, 
Art. xxxvi. 785. rdinal, the, vari- 
ous particulars respecting, from Ed- 
ward VI. to Charles II. 786, 787. 

Object of the Art. to meet objections 
— Objection of Romanists, that the 
Ordinal lacks certain essential cere- 
monies—Answered ; neither Scripture 
gives authority for the forms thus urged 
as essential, nor do we find authority 
for them in customs of the primitive 
Church — Objection that Bishops con- 
secrated according to the Ordinal of 
Edward VI. and Elizabeth were not 
πὶ στ consecrated, because the words 
of consecration did not necessarily ap- 
ply to a Bishop... shown to be fu- 
tile: 787-789. Objection of Puri- 

tans, and many well-meaning Chris- 
tians since them, to our use of Christ’s 
words, ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost... 
Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are 
forgiven,” &c.— Argument of object- 
ors that the power of remitting and re- 
taining sins was miraculous, and con- 
fined to the Apostles — Answered ; 
such power, of that higher kind, never 
given to mere man —the only author- 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


ity conveyed by our Lord to His first 
ministers was the power of the keys, | 
to admit men into the Church or king- 
dom, exclude them from it, restore 
them to it — This power committed to 
the Church as a body, and more par- 
ticularly to her Bishops and Presbyters 
—and reception of this power only 
meant by the words of our Ordination 
Service — Argument, that man cannot 
bestow God’s Spirit, and that the claim 
to do so is profane — Answered; the 
gift‘of the Holy Spirit recorded John 
xx. not His personally sanctifying in- 
fluence, not the miraculous baptism of 
the Spirit, but evidently the ordaining 
race of God; this believed by the 
hurch to flow down direct from the 
ordaining Spirit (wheresoever ordina- 
tion, appointed by Christ as the means 
of receiving it, is rightly ministered), 
to constitute the ordained person truly 
a minister of Christ — Difference be- 
tween ordination by Christ Himself 
and by Bishops; and duly recognized 
by us: 789-791. 
Consubstantiation, see Lord’s Supper, 684. 
Conversion, see Baptism, 638, &e. 


Councils, General, authority of, Art. xx1. 


. 490. Judgment of the Catholic Church 
of great value and importance — How 
to be given? 490,491. Jewish San- 
hedrim—First General Christian Coun- 
cil, so called by some, at Jerusalem — 
Provincial Synods — First four gen- 
eral Councils: of Nice, Constantinople, 
Ephesus, Chaleedon—Two subsequent 
general Councils of Constantinople — 
These six only (the first four more 
universally esteemed) acknowledged 
as general by the universal Church, 
though some others by the Greek 
Church, many by the Latin: 492, 493. 
General Councils, why not held in the 
first three centuries ... the result of 
peculiar exigencies... could only (in 
fact) be summoned by a power which 
could command general obedience, #. 6. 
the Emperor; therefore could not be 
assembled by the Pope — Universality 
of attendance, how, only, now con- 
ceivably to be insured : 493-495. No 
assurance of infallibility to Councils — 
Universal Church, only assured that 
the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it... never yet, perhaps never 
possibly, represented perfectly by any 
Synod — Suggested possibility of ma- 
jor part of the Charch being for a time 
in error — Faults of Synods : 495-497. 
Synods, use of... really general and 
of universal authority = by —- 
nition and approval by the Catholic 
Church: 498, 499. Errors of general 

(i. a for general) Councils, 
9 Ὁ 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS: 


Creeds, probable origin of, in Baptismal 
confession of faith . . . originally brief 
...in no fixed form... gradually en- 
larged to meet heresies, 218. Many 
confessions of faith preserved in writ- 
ings of the earliest fathers — Preva- 
lence of some authoritative standard, 
though with diversity of expression, 
apparent from language of early Chris- 
tian writers — Meaning of ‘‘Symbo- 
lum,” the commonest name of the 
Creed, obscure: 220. 

. Creed, Apostles’, the; traditional ac- 
counts of its having been drawn up by 
the Apostles, fabulous or improbable — 
Apostolic, however, as containing the 
doctrine taught by the Apostles, and 
in substance used by the Church even 
from their times — Form mainly the 
same probably used by them — Not 
committed to writing—Apostles’ Creed 
probably so called as being, mainly, 
that of the Church of Rome, the only 
Western Church undeniably founded 
by an Apostle : 221-223. 

Creed, Nicene, the; original form as 
recited to the Council of Nice by Euse- 
bius ... enlarged by the Council to 
counteract Arianism... received by 
the whole Church... various repre- 
sentations of it, how to be accounted 
for: 223-226. Enlargement of Nicene 
Creed by Council of Constantinople, 
nearly agreeing with Nicene Creed as 
given by Epiphanius — Constantino- 
politan Creed confirmed by Council 
of Ephesus . . . introduced into Litur- 
gies’ of Eastern, then of Western 
Churches (addition of ‘‘ Filioque,”’ 
see Procession, 121): 226, 227. 

Creed, St. Athanasius’s ... Original 
obscure ... formerly by many errone- 
ously believed to have been composed 
by Athanasius — Critical inquiries into 
authorship of it— Waterland’s strong 
arguments to prove Hilary, Bishop of 
Arles, A. ἢ. 429, the writer — External 
proofs — Internal evidences — proba- 
bly called Athanasius’s because clearly 
expressing the doctrines defended by 
him: 227-232. Value of the Creed as 
opposed to heretical views of the Trin- 
ity and Incarnation — Defence of, or 
apology for, the damnatory clauses — 
Notice of various errors opposed by the 
principal clauses of this Creed: 282- 
235. The Three Creeds of Art. viii. in 
their original languages, 235-238. 
Descent into Hell, Art. 111. 84. Hell 
here, as in the Apostles’ Creed, cor- 
responds to Hades, (not to Gehenna,) 
84, 85. Use of the word Hades among 
the Greeks, 85...among the Jews, 
86...among the Christians, 87, 88. 
What to be learned from the Scripture 
of the state of the departed, 88-91... 


851 


of the meaning of the word. Hades, 91, 
92. Descent of Christ into Hell, not an 
ancient Art. in theCreeds, 92. Accepted 
however, as an article of faith by all 
the earlier fathers ; some of their testi- 
monies quoted; asserted by them in 
refutation of Arian and Apollinarian 
denial of existence of a human Soul in 
Christ: 98, 94. Scriptural proof of, 
94,95. Object of, 95-103. . Belief that 
the Spirit, or Soul, of Christ preached 
the gospel to the souls-of the dead, 
almost universal among the earlier 
Christians, 96. Different opinions on 
the purpose of Christ’s preaching ; in 
ancient, and in more modern, times : 
97-99. Scriptural consideration of the 
end of Christ’s Descent into Hell — 
Bishop Horsley’s Sermon, on 1 Pet. 
iii. 18, 19: 100-103. 


Election, see Predestination, 426, &c. 
Excommunication, Art. 


xxxuT. 768. 
Cutting off from the people, an Old 
Testament punishment... . appears in 
general to have meant death; but un- 
derstood by later Jews of excommuni- 
cation, of which they had three kinds, 
Niddui, Cherem, Shammata — Excom- 
munication, power of, exercised by the 
Christian Church from the very ear- 
liest times; quotations in proof... 
and in frequent use through the fol- 
lowing centuries — Distinction between 
lesser and greater Excommunication — 
Confession (see Sacraments, 592, &c.) 
— Excommunications become more 
formidable in the Middle Ages, in cases 
of heresy, or of royal and national op- 
position to Church authority — Huss ; 
Wickliffe ; Luther ; Henry IV. of Ger- 
many; John of England: 768-770. 
Penance, public, in addition to pub- 
lic confession, imposed by the early 


’ Church on excommunicated penitents ; 


of whom there were four classes — Ex- 
communication, and therefore penance, 
only inflicted. for heavy offences — 
Penance, duration of term of, accord- 
ing to circumstances: 770,771. Res- 
toration to communion, and giving of 
absolution, power of, (as of excommu- 
nication,) ordinarily in the Bishop, 
sometimes committed to presbyters, in 
extreme necessity even to deacons, 
771, 772. Declaration of Council of 
Trent concerning Excommunication 
— Power of Excommunication gener- 
ally insisted on by the Reformers — 
Calvinist communions in general very 
strict observers of discipline — Church 
of England clear enough in its prin- 
ciples, (see, beside this Art., Rubric be- 
fore Communion, Introduction to Com- 
mination, Canons of 1663,) though 
restrained in its practice, owing to pe- 
culiar nature of connection between 


852 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Church and State, and prevalence of Goods of Christians not common, Art 


Erastian opinions : 772, 773. 

Scriptural proof that the Church is 
divinely authorized to excommunicate 
offenders, and to restore them on re- 
pentance to communion, 778-775 . . . 
that certain persons in the Church have 
received from Christ authority to ex- 
communicate and to restore — The 
chief officers of the Church the princi- 
pal executors of its authority, yet that 
authority vested by Divine wisdom 
not in them alone, but, with them, in 
the whole body of the faithful : (Eccle- 
siastical Courts, 778, n.) 775-778. 

Extreme Unction, see Sacraments, 596, 


&e. 

Faith, see Justification, 307, ἕο. 

Final Perseverance, see Sin after Bap- 
tism, 872, &c., 898, &e., and Predestina- 


tion. 

Free Will, Art. x. 261—sentiments of 
Apostolical Fathers on, not distinctly 
expressed — Justin Martyr — Heretics 
—Origen— Augustine : 261-265 : Gote- 
schale— Peter Lombard — Schoolmen ; 
Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, 
ery of opposing parties: 265, 266, 
(416.) 


Luther; Melancthon—Council of 
Trent — Calvin and his followers — 
Arminius — Synod of Dort : (417-419,) 
267-269. Controversies in the Church 
of Rome on the subject after the Coun- 
cil of Trent; Jansenists ; Jesuits : 269. 
Socinians, 270. Statements of, and 
controversies on, doctrine of Free Will 
in the Church of England — Carefully 

uarded language of the Art. : 270-273. 
Scriptural proof of inability of man 
since the fall to turn himself to faith 
and godliness, or to do good works ac- 
ceptable to God — Pelagian arguments 
refuted : 278-276. Scripture proof of 
necessity for grace of God, 276-281... 
for stage ὁ grace, 278 — for codperat- 
ing grace, (language of Art. vindicat- 
ed,) 279-281. 

God, Nature and essential attributes of, 
19. Scripturally shown to be Spirit- 
ual; A Personal Being of infinite ex- 
cellence ; One: 84, 86. 

Good Works, present Art., x11., on, add- 
ed in 1562... supplementary to Art. 
x1. lest that should be supposed to 
teach Solifidianism . .. opposed to An- 
tinomian errors ...to doctrine of 
schoolmen of good works meriting 
gg de congruo, and de condigno: 824, 

26. Scriptural proofs that the good 
works of justified men cannot put 
away sin and endure God’s judgment 
ἊΣ Pes that they are pleasing to God 
ΩΝ ate that the Perec νὰ 
HY g out of a true and living faith : 


_ xxxviit. 835. Almsgiving and sacri- 


fice of wealth for the Church and poor 
practised by the early Christians to an 
extent now unknown — Language of 
Justin Martyr and Tertullian which 
might seem at first sight to affirm com- 
munity of goods, shown not really and 
strictly to mean it — Clement of Alex- 
andria and Augustine argue against 
necessity of resignation of all property 
— Erroneous views on this subject 
condemned by the Church — Volun- 
tary poverty not condemned in the 
Art., but only the fanatical belief that 
all property is unlawful: 835, 836. 
The right of owners to their property 
recognized by the New Testament — 
passages which might seem inconsist- 
ent with this view explained — Most 


cogent obligation on every follower of 


Christ liberally to give alms according 
to his ability : 836-839. 


Heresies and Sects, sundry, noticés of : — 


Anabaptists; 195, 369, 877, 555, 613, 
646, 664, 836, 841. — Antinomians ; 194, 
195, 297. — Apollinarianism ; 67, 94, 96, 
230, 284, 285. — Arianism : 30-32, 47, 
50, 58, 66-68, 98, 119, 228-227, 232- 
234, 868. —\Donatists ; 371, 611-614. — 
Eutychianism ; 69, 105, 230, 232, 234. — 
Gnosticism ; 20, 28, 46, 60, 61, 67, 70, 
105, 107, 119, 177, 194, 284, 241, 262, 
864, 600, 651, 692, 759. — Macedonian- 
ism ; 82, 50, 120, 226. — Manicheanism ; 
20, 31, 67, 105, 107, 177, 194, 241, 264, 
857, 3871, 600. — Marcionitism; 105, 
107, 194, 241, 262. — Monothelites ; 70. 
— Montanism ; 26, 121, 365, 613, 759. — 
Nestorianism ; 68, 74, 230, 2382, 236. 
— Novatians ; 26, 366, 888. — Pelagian- 
ism: 242, 248, 252, 264. 274, 832, 338, 
854, 415, 444, 645, 841. — Quakers ; 
555, 841. — Sabellianism ; 29, 80, 54-62, 
119, 282, 288, 871. — Socinianism ; 33 
56, 67, 70, 80, 121, 247, 270. — Sweden 
borgians ; 70, 107. 


Holy Ghost, the, Divinity of; early her- 


etics who denied it generally disbe- 
lievers of His Personality — Gnostics ; 
Sabellians : 119. His Divinity, though 
not Personality, denied by Arians and 
Macedonians, 119, 120. 

Unsound doctrines concerning the 
Holy Ghost imputed to Origen (prob- 
ably without sufficient reason), and to 
Lactantius, 120. Strange heresy attrib- 
uted to Montanus, 131. Personality 
of the Holy Ghost generally denied by 
the Socinians, 121. Procession of the 
Holy Ghost, see ion. Holy 
Ghost, Sin against the, see Sin after 
Baptism. 

oly Ghost, the other particulars 
concerning, see Ὶ 


nity. 
Homilies, the, Art. bom Great need 


INDEX OF 


ot simple and sound instruction for the 
people at the time of the Reformation 
— First Book of Homilies attributed to 
Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and others 
— Second in great part to Jewel — 
Homilies, the, assent to, required by the 
Art. general, not specific .. . of much 
value, though not likely to be again 
much read in Churches — Objections 
taken to reading of anything uninspired 
in Churches (as to Apocrypha, see 
Scriptures Holy, 188, &c.) ... answered : 
‘782-784. 

Host, elevation of the, see Sacraments, 

.« 606, and Lord’s Supper, 731, n. 

Image Worship, see Purgatory, 518, &c., 


5386, &e. 

Incarnation of the Son of God, 67. Er- 
rors concerning — Gnostics and Mani- 
chees — Arians — Apollinarians — Nes- 
torian controversy, and progress of 
Nestorianism—Eutychian controversy, 

᾿ and spread of Eutychian or Monophy- 
site doctrine — Docete: 67-70. In- 
carnation treated of and scripturally 

_ proved, 73-78. Union of two, 7. 6. 
the Divine and human, natures in the 
still-continuing-one Person of Christ 
from the moment of the conception of 
His human nature, 73, 74. Unity of 
Person, in which Person are both na- 
tures, in Christ, the reason why ac- 
tions proper to Christ's manhood are 
at times attributed to God, and actions 
proper to God attributed to the Man 
Jesus, 75. Perfection and Distinctness 
of both natures, 75, 76 . . . Inseparably 
united in one Person forever, 77, 78. 
Sufferings and Death.of Christ; in 
His human nature only : 78, 79. Death 
of Christ consisted in the separation of 
His human Soul from His human 
Body, not of His Divinity from either, 
79, 80. Object of our Saviour’s suffer- 
ings, 80-83. Socinians deny necessity 
of a propitiatory sacrifice, or that God 
had need to be reconciled toman... 
refuted by consideration of the Divine 
attributes, and by arguments from 
Scripture: 80-82. Christ’s death a 
sacrifice not only for original guilt, 
but for actual sins, 82, 83. 

Indulgences, see Purgatory, 511, &e. 

Infant Baptism, see Baptism, 677, &e. 

Intention, Roman doctrine of, see Un- 
worthiness of Ministers, 614, 615. 

Invocation of Saints, see Purgatory, 520, 
&e., 541, &e. 

Judgment, return of Christ to, false no- 
tions concerning — Early heretics — 
Swedenborg: 107, 108. Scripture 
proofs and descriptions of the Agent 
of the future Judgment... of the ob- 
ject of it...of the Judgment itself: 
114, 115. Judgment according to 
works not opposed to justifftation by 


SUBJECTS. 853 


faith, 115, 116. Time of Christ’s com- 
ing to judgment... not known even 
to Christ as man: 116,117. See Art. 
Resurrection.. 


Justification, (Art. x1. 282) ... sought 


according to natural religion by obe- 
dience or atonement —Jews censured 
by the prophets for formal observance 
of ceremonial rites without sufficient 
reference to the spirit of them — mere 
formal observance censured by our 
Lord and St. Paul — Rabbinical errors 
on Justification — Notion of some Jews 
(and probably of Mohammed?) that a 
man might be saved without holiness 
by acknowledging the Divine Unity 
and the Resurrection : 282, 288. Sen- 
timents of the Fathers on justification, 
matter of much discussion . . . not ac- 
curately defined, no contests having 
then required such definition — Clem- 
ent of Rome (the most, express) — 
Other fathers — Their general view 
accordant with our Art. x1. — Diffi- 
culty of deciding whether they always 
understood justification in a forensic 
sense, or as including sanctification 
also — Chrysostom —Augustine —Wa- 
terland : 283-288. Views of the School- 
men — Justification generally under- 
stood by them as forgiveness of sins, 
not infusion of righteousness — Faults 
charged on their system: merit de con- 
gruo and de condigno; attrition; satis- 
faction ; sacramental grace ex opere ope- 
rato—Luther’s opposition to them 
(see also 383) — Much of their teach- 
ing possibly admitting a more inno- 
cent sense than we usually put on it, 
yet popularly mischievous — Luther’s 
grand doctrine of justification by faith 
only — His vehemence leads to some 
unguarded statements — Fides infor- 
mis; fides formata; distinctions of 
Schoolmen : 288-292. Council of Trent 
much occupied with Luther’s doctrine 
of Justification — decrees (and anath- 
emas) drawn up; one of the most 
important, that justification is not only 
remission of sins, but sanctification 
also—sense of decrees debated even 
afterwards — Roman Catholic writers 
since the Reformation generally against 
forensic sense of the word “justify :” 
293-295. Language of Luther softened 
and explained by Melancthon and oth- 
ers... ruled to imply, not opposition 
of faith to charity or holiness, but of 
Christ’s merits to man’s, of God’s mer- 
cy to asinner’s claims — Question still, 
in what sense was faith the instrument 
of justification ?— Luther — Melanc- 
thon and moderate Lutherans — Bucer 
—errors of Osiander — Agricola, es- 
teemed founder of Antinomians — Cal- 
vinistic reformers, generally symboliz- 


854 INDEX OF 
ing with Luther is. statement on justi- 
fication, 295-298. 


Doctrine of Luther (modified) em- 
braced by English Reformers —Judg- 
ment of Cranmer and his companions 
expressed by Homily of Justification 
(or Salvation) and x1th Art. of 1552— 
Language of present Art. very similar 
to that of Melancthon and the Augs- 
burg Confession — Doctrine of Hom- 
ily of Salvation, and Liturgy, ὥς. — 
Differences among later English Di- 
vines rather logical than practical — 
Hooker — Bp. Bull — Barrow — Wa- 
terland, &c. — Certain practical truths 
of importance allowed by all parties, 
Romanist and Protestant: 298-303. 
“ Justification,” Scriptural meaning of, 
investigated, 304-307. 

“ Faith,” investigation of usages of 
the term in Scripture, especially in St. 
Paul’s writings, 307-312.. Faith in 
general, 308-310. Justifying Faith, 
810-812. Justification, general Script- 
ural view of doctrine of, 818, 314. 
Justification by faith, investigation of 

culiar signification attached by St. 

‘aul to this his favourite formula, 814-- 
818. Justification, certain questions 
on—An act or a state?— Faith? or 
Faith and good works? or Faith and 
holiness ? ‘to be called the condition or 
conditions of justification ? — Justifica- 
tion by faith, how consistent with judg- 
ment according to works? (see 115) 
— Baptism and Faith being the or- 
dinary instruments of justification, 
whether necessary for it without ex- 
ception ?— Whether the language of 
St. James is opposed to the doctrine of 
St. Paul? 318-323. 
Lambeth Articles, see Sin after Baptism, 
879, 880, and Predestination, 426, n. 
Lord’s Supper, the, Art. xxviir. 683. 
Presence of Christ in that Sacrament, 
four principal opinions on: Transub- 
stantiation, doctrine of Church of 
Rome; Consubstantiation, of Luther ; 
Real Spiritual Presence, of Church of 
England and of Calvin; no presence, 
mere commemoration of Christ's death, 
doctrine of Zuingle: 688, 684. Doc- 
trine of the early ages concluded, on 
weighing all considerations, and not- 
withstanding some remarkable phrases, 
(the language of the fathers is often 
rhetorical, and not so guarded as ours 
has necessarily become, 685,) to be not 
in favour of a miraculous change in 
the consecrated elements, nor ofa car- 
nal presence of the natural body of 
Christ, but in favour of a real, effect- 
ual, life-giving presence of ,Christ’s 
spiritual Body, communicated to the 
fuithful, and feeding the souls of His 
disciples, (701.) (Perhaps possible al- 


SUBJECTS. 


ternative of consubstantiation being 


contemplated by some of the fathers, 


701, 702.) Subject discussed; and 
quotations adduced, from Ignatius to 
‘Theodoret : 684-701. Controversies of 
the Middle Ages— Growth of transub- 
stantiation —the doctrine nearly, if 
not quite, expressed in language of 
Radbert, about a. p. 830—the term 
said to have been invented about A. p. 
1100 — the doctrine declared an article 
of faith by Council of Lateran, a. p 
1216 — and decreed by Council of 
Trent, and professed in creed of Pius 
IV. — Established doctrine of the 
Roman Church — differences of state- 
ment and of thought, however, still ad- 
mitted on the subject : 702-707. Doc- 
trines of the Reformation — Luther ; 
Zuingle ; Calvin— English Reform- 
ers— Cranmer and Ridley — Formu- 
laries and Views of the Church of 
England : 707-715 (and 683, 684). 
Scriptural proof of the true doctrine 
of the Lord’s Supper... from The 
Words of Institution, 715-723 . . . from 
Our Lord's Discourse at Capernaum, 
John vi. 7238-727 ...from The State- 
ments of St. Paul, 727-731. Elevation, 
ἕο. of the Host founded on belief in 
Transubstantiation, consequently re- 
jected with that doctrine, 731, n. See 
Sacraments. 


Marriage of Priests, Art. xxxu1. 758. 


Marriage of clergy evidently allowed 
in the earliest ages of the Church — 
Second marriages considered in very 
early times as disqualifying for ordi- 
nation, though not universally so held ; 
St. Paul’s words on monogamy of a 
Bishop being interpreted by many 
eminent fathers of divorce and sub- 
sequent marriage: 758, 759. Early 
creeping in, however, of exaggerated 
esteem for celibacy -— Ascetic views 
of Essenes, Montanists, Gnostics, and 
others — Language of our Lord and of 
St. Paul, speaking of a single life as 
more favourable to piety, because freer 
from worldly distractions, pressed to 
its utmost consequences—Some clergy 
began to separate from their wives, 
and laymen to refuse the ministration 
of a married priest — these errors at 
first opposed by Councils and Canons 
— Proposal made at the Council of 
Nice that the clergy should. be obliged 
to abstain from the society of their 
wives married before ordination, but 
opposed by Paphnutius, who urges 
that it should suffice that the clergy 
should not marry after ordination ; 
the whole council assent to his words 
— Notices of other Councils — Grad- 
ual progress of principle of clerical 
celibaty in the West—Clerical celibacy 


INDEX OF 


finally decreed in England in begin- 
ning of the twelfth century — Opinions 
on, and effects of, clerical celibacy in 
the Middle Ages alluded to: 759-762. 
The Reformers all opposed to vows 
of continence — Much debate as to 
propriety of marriage of those who 
had formerly made profession (espe- 
cially monastic vows) of celibacy — 
Luther — Cranmer — Ridley — Coun- 
cil of Trent condemns marriage of the 
clergy — Reformed Churches all allow 
it — Eastern Church allows marriage 
of presbyters, but not of bishops: 762, 
768. Celibacy of the clergy, strong 
arguments in favour of, alleged from 
Seripture ; motives of Church policy 
also: 763-765. These arguments, 
however, though not to be underrated, 
must not weigh against Scriptural 
proofs, adduced, that marriage of the 
clergy as well as of the laity is Divine- 
ly sanctioned and blessed — Arguments 
from expediency might be brought on 
both sides : 765-767. 

Matrimony, see Sacraments, 591. 
Ministering in the Congregation, Art. 
XXIII. — wording and derivation of 
Art.: 549, 550, (565.) Clergy and 
* Laity, distinction between, unquestion- 
ably existing very early in the Church 
— Clemens Romanus and Ignatius — 
Clement of Alexandria; Tertullian ; 
Ireneus; Origen — Cyprianic age ; 
distinction then, undoubtedly, strongly 
marked : 550-554. Opinions of Chris- 
tians of all ages and a/most all sects 
in favour of necessity of a distinct 
ministry—Luther : Confession of Augs- 
burg; Zuinglian Confession — Church 
of England : 554, 555. Ministers Jaw- 
fully called, who, 555. Ordination 
anciently conferred by highest order of 
the ministry — Testimonies from Clem- 


ens Romanus downwards — Question - 


raised as to original identity of order 
of Bishops and order of Presbyters ; 
the titles being ailowed to have been 
convertibly used in the New Testa- 
ment — The three orders certainly ex- 
isting in the third century; and no 
Church thenceforward to be found 
where Bishops did not preside and or- 
dain ; burden of proof that it ever was 
otherwise lies on objectors : 555-557. 
Chain of evidence from Cleinens Ro- 
manus, downwards, the effect of which 
is to show the existence of three orders 
of clergy even from the Apostles... 
the superiority of Bishops, especially 
in sole power of ordination, to pres- 
byters . . . that privileges of presby- 
ters are declared, even by Chrysos- 
tom and Jerome, speaking most highly 
of their dignity, not to include power 
of ordination : 557-563. Primitive tes- 


SUBJECTS. 855 


timony proves that in the earliest ages, 
while all churches had their regular 
presbyters and deacons, there was one 
chief presbyter (whether to be esteemed 
ot a different, or, as maintainers of the 
validity of presbyterian orders would 
allege, of the same order) presiding 
over the clergy of that city, and hav- 
ing solely authority to ordain, author- 
ity believed to have been derived to 
Bishops from the Apostles, 563. Coun- 
cil of Trent, and later writers of the 
Church of Rome, though generally 
classing bishops and presbyters togeth- 
er as “sacerdotes,” yet hold bishops 
superior to presbyters, and solely quali- 
fied to confirm and ordain, 564. Lu- 
therans constrained against their wishes 
to act without bishops, from whom 
they met with nothing but opposition 
— Calvinists, though rejecting their 
bishops, as binding them to Rome, yet 
willing to submit toa lawful hierarchy 
— The primitive rule of episcopal ordi- 
nation and apostolical descent never 
infringed in the Church of England — 
This Art. the only tormulary seeming 
at all ambiguous, yet not really so; 
circumstances attending the framing 
of it— Progress of Cranmer’s opinions 
on Ordination — The Ordinal (see alse 
785, &c.) : 564-567. Scriptural proof 
of a regular ministry appointed, by 
regular ministers of ordination, in the 
Christian Church, 567-572. Example 
of Old Testament clearly to the point, 
(notwithstanding objections,) 568, 569. 
Existence of a lawfully appointed min- 
istry clearly proved from the New 
Testament, 569-572. Proofs from 
New Testament that in the Church of 
Christ there ever existed (in some 
form, 575) three orders of ministers 
...and that ordinations (in all these 
cases) were performed by the first order 
only — Arguments alleged from Scrip- 
ture in opposition answered : 572-576. 
Oath of a Christian, Art. xxx1x. 840. 
‘Testimonials that the early Christians 
refused to take idolatrous oaths, but 
not legitimate oaths in legal inquiries 
— yet doubtless much scruple on the 
subject of swearing among the ancients 
generally — The primitive Church 
very severe against idle swearing, 
swearing by the creature, and perjury 
—Some fathers, led by the strong 
language of our Lord and St. James, 
appear to have doubted the lawful- 
ness of any oaths to Christians — The 
Pelagians denied it; replied to by 
Augustine — all oaths held unlawful 
by the Waldenses, the Anabaptists, 
(against whom this Art. is probably 
directed,) and the Quakers : 840, 841. 
Oaths admitted to be lawful under the 


856 


Old Testament— Probable abuse of 
oaths among the Jews — Great danger 
of profane and careless swearing — 
This is the evil habit condemned, it 
seems very apparent, by our Lord, 
when enforcing the spirit, not merely 
the letter, of the third commandment 
— This language shown to apply to 
common conversation — St. James’s 
words to be interpreted accordingly — 
Oaths on solemn and important occa- 
sions, especially in courts of justice, 
lawful to Christians as well as Jews, 
on New Testament authority: 841-- 


Old Testament, the, especially its con- 
sistency with the New, Art. vi1.— 
Art. compounded of two of the Artt. 
of 1552,193. Old Testament held to 
be contrary to the New by some early 
heretics .. . Gnostics ; Manichees ; prob- 
ably followed by some medieval here- 
tics — Fanatics of the period of the 
Reformation set inward illumination 
above Scripture — Antinomians ; Ana- 
baptists: 194, 195. Transitory prom- 
ises, only, looked for ly the fathers, 
an opinion held by some, mainly, or- 
thodox Christians—( Warburton passim 
8. ἢ. Art.) 195. Retention of ceremo- 
nial part of Mosaic Law desired by 
Judaizers — Jewish Polity a model to 
some Anabaptists — Puritan reference 
to Old Testament language in civil 
affairs — Fathers under the Old Testa- 
ment, how saved 1 196. 

Law of Moses, character of, as a 
Theocracy ; enforced therefore by tem- 
poral sanctions ; 197-200. . . character 
of, as a dispensation professedly pre- 
paratory to the Christian economy ; 
salvation therefore not offered by the 
letter of the law: 200, 201. ome 
knowledge of the Mediator derived 
from the Patriarchs, 201. Patriarchal 
belief in, and knowledge among the 
Jews of, an eternal life, Scriptural ar- 

uments for, from books of Moses... 
mJob... Psalms... Proverbs and 
Ecclesiastes . . . Prophets: 202-210. 
Jewish belief in the time of our Sav- 
jour, 210, 211. Heavenly promises 
looked for by the ancient fathers, 
Heb. xi. 211, 212. Old Testament, au- 
thority of, recognized in the New, 212. 

Ceremonial of the Jewish Law abol- 
ished ; yet instruction still to be de- 
rived from it; 212-214. Moral portion 
of the Law perpetually binding ; taught 
by our Lord to be binding in a stricter 
and more spiritual sense than it was 

nerally understood to be by the 

ews: 215, 216. Moral commandments 
still binding, though some of their 
sanctions were peculiar to the Jewish 
Theocracy, 216, 217. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


One Oblation of Christ on the Cross, Art. 


xxx. 744. Eucharist spoken of by 
the fathers from the very first as an 
offering or sacrifice —Sundry quota- 
tions from Clement of Rome to Ter- 
tullian... from Clement’ of Alexan- 
dria and Origen ... no certain ref- 
erence yet found to any offering in 
the Eucharist, except that of the 
elements, and with them a sacrifice 
of prayer and thanksgiving — View 
of the Eucharist as a commemoratire 
sacrifice held, it need not to be ques- 
tioned, by the early fathers, but not 
expressly appearing to be so before the 
time of (yprian; 744-747. Language, 
then, and, commonly, afterwards, used 
by the fathers concerning the Eucha- 
rist as a sacrifice, with special reference 
to the Body and Blood of Christ com- 
memorated as spiritually present in 
that sacrament... this urged by the 
Roman Catholics as proving that a 
true sacrifice anew of Christ in the 
Eucharist was believed in the earliest 
time, whereas Protestants have as- 
serted that there is allusion only toa 
sacrifice wherein the whole Church as 
Christ’s Body is offered to God: 747, 
748. Arguments showing that the 
Romanist view is incorrect, but that 
the fathers beside the notion of the 
Eucharist as an offering of alms and 
oblations, of prayer and praise, and of 
ourselves, esteemed it a memorial of 
Christ’s sacrifice, and a recalling and a 
pleading of its efficacy, 748-751. Doe. 
trine of the fathers easily perverted 
into the Roman Catholic doctrine of 
the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, 
on the invention, &c. of transubstantia- 
tion — Romanist doctrine of the mass, 
established by Council of Trent — 
Custom naturally following that the 
priest should offer the sacrifice, but 
the people not communicate: 751. 
Romish sacrifice of the mass strong- 
ly protested against by continental and 
Anglican Reformers — Unwillingness 
in Reformed Churches to speak at all 
of an Eucharistic sacrifice, through 
dread of the Mass — Propriety of 
speaking of “ the Christian sacrifice” 
in accordance with the language of the 
primitive Church advocated neverthe- 
less by" many learned and pious di- 
vines of the English Church : 751-754. 
Scriptural refutation of the Romish 
doctrine of the mass, 754, 755. Script- 
ural explanation (agreeable to the be- 
lief of the early Church) of the true 
nature of Eucharistic sacrifices, 755- 
757. Question as to calling the Lord's 
‘Table an Altar considered, 756, n. 


Orders, see Sucraments, 591. 
Pantheism ... Esoteric doctrine of Pa 


INDEX OF 


qin ... to be found in Egyptian 
eology, Greek and Roman Polythe- 


ism, Brahminism and Buddhism, and 
Jewish Cabala ... probably intro- 
duced into corruptions of Christianity 
from Eastern philosophy ...an in- 
gredient in creeds of Gnostics, Mani- 
chees, and possibly some later heretics 
... called Spinozism from Spinoza, a 
Jew who taught it in the 17th century 
... lately revived by some German 
divines: 19-21. Scripturally refuted, 
35, 36. 

Penance, see Purgatory, 512, &c., Sacra- 
ments, 592, &c., Excommunication, 770, 


Predestination and Election, treated of in 
Art. xvit., almost the same as the Art. 
of 1552, 401. Predestination, questions 
concerning not confined to Christian 
religion — Essenes, Stoics, Mahom- 
etans, all Predestinarians— Election 
universally allowed in the Christian 
Church to be taught in Scripture — 
meaning of it, variety of sentiments 
on: Calvinism; Arminianism ; Nation- 
alism; Ecclesiastical Election; Elec- 
tion first of some to grace, then of 
some of these to glory ; Baxterianism : 
402, 403. Language on this subject 
of earlier fathers mostly general, there- 
fore difficult to fix to a particular 
meaning — 6. 4. of the Apostolic fathers 
(especially), Clement of Rome, Igna- 
tius, Hermas : 403-405 . . . of the post- 
Apostolic (in whose time philosophy 
had affected the language of theology), 
as Justin, Ireneeus, Tertullian, Clem- 
ent of Alexandria, Origen, 405-411. 
Augustine ; his views, statements, oc- 
casional retractations, appeals to pre- 
ceding fathers : 411-415. 

Augustine’s predestinarianism car- 
ried farther by some of his followers, 
415-417. Semi-Pelagianism condemned, 
but Ecclesiastical (not Augustinian) 
Election asserted in the second Coun- 
cil of Orange, A. p. 529, 416. Luther 
and Melancthon ; Zuinglius : 417, 418. 
Council of Trent, 418, 419. Calvin, 
advancing far beyond Augustine — 
Arminius: 419, 420. 

Doctrine of our own Reformers, and 
meaning of Art. xviz., much debated 
— Language of Cranmer and Ridley, 
and other contemporaneous divines... 
and of formularies of our Church — 
Ecclesiastical Election more probably 
than Calvinism or Arminianism con- 
tained in an Art. drawn up by Cran- 
mer: 420-423. Will the wording of 
the Art. bear this meaning? It may 
(and it has been forcibly contended 
must, exclusively): 423-425. Art., 
however, probably drawn up design- 
edly in guarded and general terms, 

108 


SUBJECTS. 857 


425. lection, Scriptural doctrine of. 
investigated, 426-442. Importance of 
keeping close to Scripture, and clear 
of philosophy — Views of Calvinists 
and Arminians : 426, 427 (see also 431, 
442). Investigation of subject of Elec- 
tion from Old Testament, 428-481... 
from New Testament, considered ne- 
cessarily, in connection with the Old, 
432-442. Old and New Testaments, 
and the earliest Christian fathers after 
them, seem in perfect harmony to 
speak of God’s election of individuals 
to His Church... cannot be affirmed 
by us to have spoken of any further 
election : 442. ; 

Procession of the Holy Ghost, contro- 
versy concerning, 121-124. ‘“ Pro- 
ceeding from the Father,” inserted in 
Nicene Creed by Council of Constan- 
tinople — Council of Ephesus decree 
that no addition should thenceforth be 
made in that Creed — Uniform decla- 
ration accordingly by the Greek fathers 
of belief in the procession of the Holy 
Ghost from the Father : 121, 122. The 
Latin fathers according to inference 
from Scripture speak of the Holy Ghost 
as proceeding from the Father and the 
Son— many of the earlier Greek writ- 
ers thought to have held the same doc- 
trine, though unwilling to depart from 
language of the creed: 121, 122. The 
question brought forward by Theodo- 
ret, objecting to expressions used by 
Cyril — Controversy not then pursued 
in the East — Discussions afterwards 
in the Western Church — Clause “ Fi- 
lioque”’ introduced by Churches of 
France and Spain — Contest carried 
on by the Eastern and Western 
Churches on the subject: 122-124. 
Procession of the Holy Ghost from 
the Father and the Son asserted, Art. 
v., 124... from the Father scriptural- 
ly proved, 125... from the Son con- 
cluded from, though not verbally de- 
clared in, Scripture, 125, 126. Early 
Christians observant of the Scriptural 
distinction between the Son as begotten 
of, and the Holy Ghost as proceeding 
from, the Father, 124, 125. 

Purgatory, &c. Art. xx11. almost the 
same with Art. xx111. of Edward VI. 
501. Intermediate state believed in 
by Jews and early Christians (see De- 
scent into Hell) — their language, at 
least that of the earliest fathers, in- 
consistent with belief of Purgatory: 
501, 502. Prayers (and thanksgivings) 
tor the Dead, an’early practice among 
Christians .. . unconnected with, and 
in many cases inconsistent with, doc- 
trine of Purgatory : 502-505. Prayers 
for the dead in process of time, in Rom- 
ish Church, converted into prayers for 


858 


souls in Purgatory — Such prayers 
how dealt with by English Reformers : 
605, 506. Gradual rise of doctrine of 
Purgatory traced — Tertullian ; Origen 
(neither agreeing with Romanist view) 
— Augustine doubtfully suggests pur- 
gatorial view of 1 Cor. iii. 11-15. as 
not improbable ; doctrine evidently a 
novelty in his days : 506-510. Purga- 
tory distinctly asserted by Pope Greg- 
ory I. — Belief of it rapidly gains 
ground in the Western Church — Dis- 
cussed by Schoolmen — not received 
by Greek Church — Synod of Basle, 
and of Florence — vain attempts to 
procure consent of the Eastern Church 
to this doctrine: 510, 511. Council 
of Trent decrees that there is a Purga- 
tory; Romanist divines more minute 
than the Council on the subject; Bel- 
larmine: 511. Jndulyences or Pardons 
— Relaxations of Penances in the 
primitive Church ... wholly different 
from modern doctrine of Church of 
Rome concerning Indulgences — That 
doctrine stated—Indulgences probably 
not introduced before end of twelfth 
century — Use of them (though not 
unopposed) becomes more and more 
revalent and corrupt— Sale of them 
in pontificate of Leo X. rouses the in- 
dignation of Luther— Decrees, &c. 
respecting them in Council of Trent: 
511-518. 

Worship of images (and relics), strong 
testimony against, from the earliest 
times ... strongly opposed by the 
Church on appearance of first tendency 
towards it in the fourth century — 
Pictures, then Statues, introduced into 
Churches ; 513-517. Iconoclastic Con- 
troversy, 517, 518. Council of Trent, 
519. Worship of relics — Respect paid 
in early ages of the Church to relics 
of saints, but nothing like religious 
worship of them permitted — Undue 
esteem of them grows with progress 
of image worship and of invocation of 
saints: 519, 520. 

Invocation of Saints, no authority for, 
but strongest testimony against, in 
early Christian Church — Mariolatry 
especially condemned by Epiphanius 
— Oratorical (merely) address of Greg- 


δ Oe sl ial ? 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


_ formed Communions—Calvinists more 


rigid than Lutherans and the Church 
of England as to outward symbolism : 
526, 527. 

Scriptural refutation of Romish doc- 
trines contained in this Art. 528-548. 
Scripture, arguments alleged by Ro- 
manists from (and from Apocrypha), 
in favour of purgatory ; and refuted (1 
Cor. iii. 12-15 especially considered) : 
528-534. Scripture texts directly op- 

ed to Purgatory, 534. Doctrine of 

ndulgences, founded on ‘doctrines of 
Purgatory and supererogation, un- 
scriptural, 534, 535. Arguments al- 
leged most unfoundedly from Scrip- 
ture in favour of image-worship, 586- 
539. Decisive Scriptural emna- 
tion of it, 539. Worship of relics, ar- 
guments in favour of, vainly alleged 
from Scripture... Contrary to first 
principles of Scripture truth : 589, 540. 
Invocation of Saints; vain attempt 
of Romanists to defend this practice 
from Scripture: 541-547. Canoniza- 
tion in Church of Rome, what, 544. 
Scriptural condemnation of saint- (and 
angel-) worship, 547, 548. 


Reformation, the, foundation of, in quali- 


ties of human nature — gradual prog- 
ress —- Wickliffe, Huss, Jerome — Re- 
vival of letters — Art of printing — 
Erasmus: 7. © Henry VIII. — Cran- 
mer: 8, 9. Important steps in reign 
of Henry VIII.; Church declared in- 
dependent of Rome ; Bible and part of 
Liturgy translated into English, &e. : 
10. Edward VI. and progress in his 
reign. — First Book of Homilies ; First 
Service Book ; Cranmer’s Catechism ; 
Second Service Book ; Forty-two Ar- 
ticles: 10-13. Cranmer and Ridley, 
18. Reformation gained life from Ma- 
rian persecution, 18. Elizabeth ; prog- 
ress in her reign — Parker — Second 
Service Book of Edward VI. re- 
stored with alterations apheraneaely 
revised in Reign of James I. and 
Charles Il.) — Alterations in Articles ; 
reduced to thirty-nine: 14-16. Au- 
thority and interpretation of, and sub- 
scription to, Articles, 16, 17. [This 
paragraph a summary of the Introduc- 
ant 


Regeneration, see Baptism, 638, &e. 
Relics, see Purgatory, 519, 520, 586, 537. 
Resurrection of Christ, the, followed by 


ory Nazianzen to the spirits of the 
dead — Interest felt by early Chris- 
tians for souls of departed brethren — 


Incautious language of some of the 
fathers — Gradual rise of saint-wor- 
ship; 520-526. Romish doctrine of In- 
vocation of Saints ; set forth in decrees 
of Council of Trent — Practice of Rom- 
ish Church exceeds statement of the 
decrees — Latria, dulia, hyperdulia — 
Purgatory, image-worship, saint-wor- 
ship, belief in, condemned by all Re- 


Ascension, Session, and Judgment, meee 
three subjects noted separately in in- 
dex,) as in Art. 1v., a part of all an- 
cient Creeds, 104. False and corrupt 
notions concerning Resurrection in 
general, and the Resurrection of Christ 
— Sadducees and Essenes—Early her- 
etics — Eutyches;: 104, 105. Almost 
Eutychian language concerning the 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


glorified Body of our Lord introduced 
᾿ by Eucharistical controversy .. . op- 
posed by this Art.: 105...and by 
rubric at end of Communion Service, 
note at 106. Statement of Art. that 
our Lord took into heaven flesh, bones, 
&c. though objected to, corresponds 
with language of early fathers, who, 
notwithstanding, held that His Body 
after His Resurrection became a glo- 
rified Body, 106, 107. Identity of 
Christ’s risen Body, wherewith He 
ascended into heaven, with that in 
which He was buried... Yet that 
risen Body a spiritual Body; Script- 
urally proved: 111-118. Spiritual 
Body, what exactly, a mystery, 113. 
“Natural Body ” of Christ, in what 
sense used in rubric at end of Com- 
munion Service, 118, 114, n. Resur- 
rection of Christ indisputably taught 
as afact by Scripture — Historical and 
doctrinal importance of it Scripturally 
proved: 108, 109. 

Sacraments, the, Art. xxv., origin of, and 
alterations in, 583, 584. Sacrament, 
an Ecclesiastical rather than Scriptural 
term — Original meanings of the word 
— Earliest application of the term to 
anything Christian, in’ letter of Pliny 
the younger to Trajan — Tertullian — 
“ Sacrament,” by the fathers used both 
— 1, in a more extended sense, signify- 
ing little more than a religious ordi- 
nance or sacred sign in general, and 2, 
also in a more restricted sense, accord- 
ing to which the two great Sacraments 
of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were 
markedly separated from, and prefer- 
red before, all other ordinances ; Quo- 
tations in proof of these points: 584- 
588. Seven Sacraments said to be at 
first devised by Peter Lombard in the 
twelfth century — Adopted generally 
by schoolmen, established by Council 
of Trent, and made part of the Creed 
of Pius IV.: 588. Confessions of all 
the Reformed Churches acknowledge 
but two Sacraments — Some differences 
in regard to recognized number in be- 
ginning of the English Reformation ; but 
final judgment of the English Church 
asserted in this Art., in the Catechism, 
and in the second Book of Homilies 
(where the distinction between a Sac- 
rament in the general and in the strict 
sense is laid down): 588-590. Four 
of the five Romish Sacraments men- 
tioned in the Art., admitted by the 
Church of England, at least in a modi- 
fied form — these not excluded by our 
definition from being in some sense Sac- 
raments, but excluded from being “‘ such 
Sacraments as Baptism and the Com- 
munion ” (see Hom.), 590. Confirma- 
tion, 590. Ordination — Matrimony : 591, 


859 


592. Penance, 592-596. (Auricular Con- 
fession, views on, of Lutherans, Calvin, 
Church of England, 594-596.) 

Extreme Unction—no early authority 
before fifth century (and then vainly 
alleged) for this usage as a Sacrament 
— Derivation of it from the custom 
of anointing the sick, which at first 
had reference to bodily diseases ; inet- 
fectual attempt of Romanists to derive 
authority for Unction as a Sacrament 
from its application as mentioned in ἢ 
Scripture in miraculous healing —Unc- 
tion practised, but not esteemed a Sac- 
rament, by the Greek Church : 596- 
598. Sacraments, efficacy of, to be dis- 
cussed more fully under Artt. xxyu1. 
xxvil1. Doctrine of fathers from the 
first clear and strong, that great spirit- 
ual blessings are to be obtained by all 
faithful recipients both in Baptism and 
in the Lord’s Supper : 598-600. Sacra- 
ments, grace and necessity of, denied 
by some early heretics, 600. Sacra- 
mental efficacy, subject of violent con- 
tests at the Reformation — Doctrine of 
Rome, as fixed by the Council of Trent 
—Views of early Reformers : — Zuin- 
gle; Luther; Calvin — Anglican Re- 
formers — More modern times re- 
ferred to: — Quakers and some other 
sects ... Foreign Protestants . . 
Differences of opinion still subsisting 
in the Church of England : 600-606. 
Sacraments, proper use of; language 
of Art. opposed to the elevation, and 
procession of the host in the Church 
of Rome: 606. Sacraments, worthy 
reception of, views of the fathers, 606, 
607. Opus operatum, theory of, originat- 
ing from scholastic disputes, concern- 
ing the grace of the Sacraments... 
adopted by Church of Rome... strong- 
ly opposed by all Reformers : 608, 609. 


Salvation to be had only through Christ, 


and in His Church, doctrine of, unani- 
mously held by the early. fathers — 
Different opinions among the fathers, 
as to salvability and future state of the 
heathens and the unbaptized : 448-446. 

Pope Innocent III. and some 
schoolmen—Period of the Reformation 
— Council of Trent anathematizes all 
who deny that baptism is necessary to 
salvation — Views of foreign and of our 
own Reformers on salvation through 
Christ alone, and salvability of the 
heathen and the unbaptized: 446-448. 
Art. xviri. condemns latitudinarian- 
ism; but pronounces not on the salya- 
bility of the heathen; they, if saved, 
saved through Christ though unknown 
to them: 448, 451. Scriptural proof 
that salvation is set forth only by the 
name of Christ, 449... therefore of ° 
fered only in the Church, 449, 450... 


860 


that therefore we have no right to say 
that every man shall be saved by the 
law which he professes, if observed by 
him, 450-452. 
Scriptures, Holy, sufficiency of, for Sal- 
vation ... treated of in Art. v1., the 
first controversial Art. of our Church, 
the fundamental doctrines of Catholic 
Christianity having been wisely first 
laid down — alterations in present from 
original Art. : 129. Doctrines of Church 
of Rome concerning Scripture and Tra- 
dition . . . expressed by decrees of 
Council of Trent .. . stated by Roman 
Catholic divines ... Scripture and Tra- 
dition (not merely hermeneutical) rep- 
resented as equal sources of doctrine, 
and one without the other insufficient 
for salvation: 180, 181. Doctrine of 
Church of England that Scripture con- 
tains all things necessary for salvation, 
181, 182. Arguments alleged from 
Scripture as against its own sufficien- 
cy ; and refuted : 182-137. Arguments 
alleged from Scripture, some incon- 
clusive, some strongly presumptive, or 
conclusive, to establish its sufficiency, 
137-189. Arguments alleged from rea- 
son for the Anglican in opposition to 
‘the Roman rule on this subject, 139- 
142. Arguments alleged from reason 
in favour of the Romanists, and against 
the Anglican, view of the subject ; and 
refuted : 148-147, Testimonies of the 
primitive fathers in favour of the Angli- 
can rule, and not of the Roman, 147- 
149. The Regula fidei appealed to by 
some fathers, merely the Baptismal 
Creed, based therefore on Scripture, 
and widely different from the Doctrina 
tradita of the Church of Rome, 150, 151. 
Appeal to tradition in preference to 
Scripture made by some fathers, merely 
against heretics who mutilated and per- 
verted Scripture, 151, 152. CAaNoNn 
ἢ Scripture, 158-188. Jewish canon of 
ld Testament authorized by our Lord, 
158, 154. Question between claims of 
the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint 
to be the Jewish Scriptures — Proofs 
of the exclusive canonicity of the He- 
brew Bible from continuous Jewish tes- 
timony, and Targums, from some fa- 
thers, from Philo and Josephus, from 
classification used by our Lord: 154- 
159. Septuagint, a Greek version of 
the Hebrew Scriptures, to which the 
Apocryphal books, being Greek origi- 
nals, or Greek translations from Chal- 
dee, were afterwards appended, 159, 160. 
Septuagint, and consequently Apocry- 
pha, became current in the Church from 
gnorance of Hebrew among the fathers 
of the first three centuries, except Ori- 
n—Apocryphal books retained in 
tin Vulgate, (translated from Sep- 


_tuagint,) though known Ὁ 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


many to 
be of inferior authority to the Hebrew 
Canon ; and ultimately adopted by the 
Council of Trent as canonical : 160, 161 
(with anathema against rejecters, 165). 
Testimonies of fathers to the exclusive 
Canon of Hebrew Bible . . . conclusive 
on the whole, notwithstanding quota- 
tions made from Apocryphal books, 
even as if of authority — Augustine 
and Council of Carthage —their au- 
thority invalid to establish canonicity 
of the Apocryphal books ; their appro- 
bation of some of them probably to be 
taken with restrictions : 162-165. Can- 
on of the New Testament based on 
same authority as that of the Old — 
Same books admitted as Canonical in 
the New Testament by all branches 
of the Church of Christ: 166. Re- 
spects in which the Church of England 
differs from the Church of Rome, and 
from some Protestants, in mode of set- 
tling the Canon, 166, 167. Scripture 
proof of inspiration and ἌΜΕ οἵ 
the Apostles, 167, 168. Mode of de- 
termining the genuineness of writings 
professing to be Apostolical — Witness, 
not merely sanction, of the Church ap- 
pealed to— Fitness of the primitive 
Church for giving the requisite testi- 
mony : 168-171. Evidence from MSS., 
171, 172...from versions, 172, 178 
... from catalogues, 173, 174... from 
quotations, references, commentaries, 
174-177. Same Scriptures as those 
used by the Church acknowledged al- 
so by (most) heretics, and sought out 
for destruction by persecutors, 177, 178. 
Esteemed works of some early writers, 
and some Apocryphal books profess- 
ing to be Apostolical, yet not received 
as canonical, 178. Internal marks of 
genuineness, 178, 179. Some books 
of the generally received Canon at first 
considered doubtful, 179-181. 
Tradition of doctrine necessary to 
salvation rejected by the Church of 
England — Traditions subservient to, 
and illustrative of, Scripture, used and 
respected by her — Ecclesiastical tra- 
dition ; useful for guidance with re- 
spect to discipline and ceremonial — 
ermenentical Tradition ; useful in the 
interpretation of Scripture, though not 
as adding to its authority ; so viewed 
by the Church of England : 182-188. 
Apocrypha, proper use of, asserted in 
Art. vi... . practice of Church of Eng- 
land in ing it in churches vin- 
dicated: 188-192 . . . overvalued by 
ΡΣ, undervalued by Protestants, 
A 


Session of Christ at the right hand of 


God — foretold and recorded in Scrip- 
ture — meaning of the phrase — Script- 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


ural declarations of the perfect domin- 
ion, &c. enjoyed by Christ on His final 
exaltation to be seated at the right 
hand of the Father, 110, 111. See 
_ Resurrection. 

Sin after Baptism; Art. xvi. very near- 
ly. same as Art. xv. of 1552, which was 
followed by an express Art. on Blas- 
phemy against the Holy Ghost, 364. 

Possibility of repentance and forgive- 
ness for sins committed after Baptism, 
some stir on, even in early ages of the 
Church—opinions of fathers ; heretics ; 
sects : 864-368. Views on the subject 
at the time of the Reformation — Ana- 
baptists — Council of Trent — Conti- 
nental and English Reformers: 369, 
870. Holy Ghost, sin against the ; lan- 
guage of the Art. directed against opin- 
ion first broached by Origen, that blas- 
phemy against the Holy Ghost is when 
baptized Christians sin . . . opposed by 
Athanasius — Observations of Augus- 
tine — Origen’s theory rejected by the 
Church at large, but adopted by the 
Novatians : 370-372. Sin against the 
Holy Ghost, nature of, investigated 
from Scripture — Statements of Atha- 
nasius and of Augustine: 391-393. Pos- 
sibility of falling from grace ; closely 
connected with Predestination— Mean- 
ing attached by early fathers to Scrip- 
ture language used by them respecting 
predestination to grace, not immediate- 
ly certain — Augustine ; his doctrine 
of perseverance — Greater precision of 
terms induced by controversies on Pe- 
lagianism, and on the predestinarian 
doctrines of Augustine — Augustine’s 
doctrine of perseverance : 872-376. 

Final Perseverance discussed at time 
of the Reformation — Council of Trent 
—Luther ; Zuingle ; Confession of Augs- 
burg; Calvinistic divines — English 
Reformers; this Art., Homilies, Litur- 
gy, etc. : 376-378. Lambeth Articles ; 
Hampton Court Conference: 879, 380 
(and 425). 

Scriptural proof that sins after bap- 
tism are not, generally, unpardonable, 
880-383. Scripture passages which 
have led to belief that deadly sin after 
baptism is unpardonable, considered, 
and concluded, although so severe 
against wilful offenders against light 
and grace, (and strict as the discipline 
of the early Church was against all 
such offenders,) yet not to afford any 
proof that heinous sin after baptism 
cannot be pardoned on repentance ; 
strongest and severest texts seem to 
apply to apostates hardened in sin: 

84-391. 


Final Perseverance, or Indefectibil- 
ity of Grace, doctrine of, rejected in 
Art. xvi. — Views of Zuinglians and 


861 


high Calvinists— Augustine — Luther- 
ans— English Reformers: 393, 394. 
Arguments alleged from Scripture in 
favour of doctrine of Final Persever- 
ance; shown to be invalid : 394-397. 
Scripture proof of possibility of falling 
from a state of grace — doctrine of In- 
detectibility of grace introduced (it is 
contended) by Calvin as seeming ne- 
cessary to the harmony and complete- 
ness of his predestinarian scheme; 
397-400. 


' Sin, Christ alone without; Art. xv. 


(connected with some preceding Artt. 
and probably supplementary to pre- 
ceding Art.) — Pelagianism — Sinful- 
ness of the Virgin Mary made a ques- 
tion . . . not decided in Council of 
Trent: 354, 355. Scriptural proof of 
sinlessness of our Saviour; who took 
our perfect nature, which includes /ia- 
bility to sin, though He took not sin, a 
fault of it: 856-358. Scriptural proof 
of sinfulness of all other men, even 
though baptized and born again — 
Blameless perfection attributed to per- 
sons in Scripture in a popular, not ab- 
solute sense: 859-361. The Blessed 
Virgin scripturally shown to be, though 
most singularly holy, not exempt from 
sin, 861-363. 


Sin, Original, Art. rx. 289. Origin of 


evil a very early subject of speculation 
among philosophers and divines — 
Original Sin; doctrine of, appears to 
have been held by the Jews: 289... 
Belief of, by the Christian fathers, 240 
... Early heresies on, 241. Origen’s 
theory, 241. Pelagianism ; Semi-Pela- 
gians ; 242, 248. Views of the medieval 
Schoolmen on Original Sin, 248, 244. 
Decrees of Council of Trent on this 
subject, 244. . . differing from doctrine 
of Anglican Church in affirming the 
entire cancelling of original sin in bap- 
tism, 245. Lutheran views; our ΙΧ. 
Art. derived from 11d of Augsburg 
Confession : 245. Calvin — Difference 
among Calvinists on first introduction 
of original sin— Difference between 
Calvinists and Arminians on extent of 
vitiation of our nature by the fall : 246, 
247. (See also 2538-256.) Anabaptists 
— Socinians : 247. Guarded language 
of the Church of England — Homilies : 
247, 248. Scriptural proof that Orig- 
inal Sin infects all men, 248-251 .. . is 
not derived from imitation, but inher- 
ited by birth, 251-253. Scriptural 
views considered relating to the extent 
of this naturally inherited corruption, 
253-256 ...of the doctrine that orig- 
inal sin deserves God’s wrath and 
damnation, 256-258. Scripture proof 
that infection of original sin is not 
wholly removed by baptism, 258-260 


862 . INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


. .. that concupiscence has the nature 
of sin, ) 

Son of God, the, eternal generation of ; 
held by the orthodox fathers : 66,67... 
treated of and scripturally proved, 71, 
72. ‘“ Word,” or “ Logos,” 71. “ The 
Father greater than the Son” as re- 
gards priority of order, not infinity of 
nature, 78. Son of God, Incarnation 
of, see Incarnation . .. other particulars 
concerning, see Trinity. 

pores tay Presence, see Lord’s Supper, 


Supererogation, Works of, Art. χιν., 
841... Doctrine of, perhaps suggested 
by strong language of fathers on Mar- 
tyrdom and Virginity, 341-348... 

ll-grown form of — Indulgences ap- 
proved, but works of Supererogation 
not especially mentioned, by Council 
of Trent: 843. Arguments alleged by 
Bellarmine from Scripture in support 
of the Romish doctrine of Superero- 

tion; and refuted: 844-851. That 
octrine scripturally disproved, 851- 
858... arises from false yiew of prin- 
ciples of Christian obedience, 358. 

Supremacy of the Crown, see Civil Mag- 
istrates, 793, &c. 

Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, see 

ivil Magistrates, 809, &e. 

Tongue not understood by the people, 
not to be used in the congregation, 
Art. xxiv. 577. Testimony of the 
fathers not likely to be other than in- 
cidental, the practice being unknown 
in early ages — Early translations of 
Scripture, and vernacular liturgies, 

' used by converted nations — Evidence 
of the fathers that among the primitive 
Christians the whole ᾿ congregation 
joined in the responses, &c. . . . (Bish- 
ops and presbyters were enjoined by 
Justinian to speak audibly in public 
es i and sacraments)... and that 

criptures were read and prayers of- 
fered in a tongue intelligible to the 
assembly — Vulgar tongue, employ- 
ment of, in offering up prayers in the 
primitive Church, in order to the bet- 
ter instruction of the people, acknowl- 
edged by eminent Schoolmen and 
Roman divines: 577-579. Origin of 
use of a dead language for public wor- 
ship, from imposition of the language 
of the Romans on their colonial sub- 
jects; from progressively increasing 
connection of ecclesiastics with Rome ; 
from growing feeling of mystery as to 
Church ordinances; from feeling in 
favour of one universal tongue to be 
used in the one, yet Universal, 
Church — Council of Trent — In mod- 
ern times some prayers offered in ver- 
nacular tongues in Roman Churches, 
but the mass celebrated only in Latin, 


_ to avoid, as unreasonably alleged, prof- 
ieee | 


anation, &c. Clear Seri 
ment against the use of an unknown 
tongue in Liturgies, (though not muck 
likely to be said in Scripture on the 
subject; no trace of such a practice 
among the Jews or the primitive Chris- 
tians) —Custom originating in ac- 
ate perpetuated by design: 579- 


Tradition, see Scriptures Holy, 130, &e. 


T 


ἐν 
T 


182, &e. 

raditions of the Church; Art. xxxrv. 
(in connection with which Preface to . 
Book of Common Prayer should ‘be 
read) like xvth of Confession of 
Augsburg — Right of particular or 
national Churches (vindicated at the 
Reformation against the Church of 
Rome) to ordain, change, and abolish, 
ceremonies of mere human authority ; 
a right agreeable to Scripture, and 
exercised in early times by the differ- 
ent Churches, which had great variety 
of discipline and ritual — Controversy 
concerning Easter ... Concerning the 
rebaptizing of heretics — Diversity of 
practice in reference to the Jewish 
Sabbath — Different forms allowed of 
Liturgies and Creeds: 779-781. No 
right in private persons wantonly to 
break or neglect traditions of the 
Church to which they belong — Script- 
ural authority for obedience to civil 
and ecclesiastical authorities — Whole 
system of primitive discipline involves 
the principle that laws of the Chutch 
are binding on individual Christians — 
Decrees of Councils on the same prin- 
ciple: 781. 

ransubstantiation, see Lord's Supper, 
683. 

rinity, Holy, the; probable (at least) 
intimations of, in Jewish writings, in 
ancient mythology, in Plato and other 
philosophers : 21-23. Received on its 
revelation in the Gospel as the furda- 
mental doctrine of the Christian faith, 
though not so technically asserted at 
first as was afterwards rendered neces- 
sary in opposition to heresy, 28, 24. 
Early testimonies to this doctrine, 25- 
27. False opinions on, 27-34. Juda- 
ism and Eastern philosophy, elements 
of corruption and division frequently 
alluded to by St. Paul and St. John, 
27. The Gnostic philosophy — Simon 
Magus and the Nicolaitans — Cerinthus 
— Nazarenes and Ebionites: 28. The- 
odotus and Artemon — Praxeas — 
Noetus and Sabellius: 29.  Beryllus 
— Paul of Samosata: 28, 24. Arius 
— Arian heresy condemned by Coun- 
cil of Nice ; and opposed by Athana- 
sius: 31,32. Semi-Arians, &c. — Ma. 
cedonius ; his heresy condemned, alsc 


INDEX OF 


the Arian finally, by’ Council of Con- 
stantinople— Philoponus: 32. Nomi- 
nalists charged with Tritheism, 82, 33. 
Unitarians — Lelius and Faustus So- 
cinus — Whiston and Clarke — Priest- 
ley — Tendency of Presbyterians, with 
exception of Kirk of Scotland, to So- 
cinianism — Foreign Protestant Ra- 
tionalism favourabie to Unitarian 
views : 88. Trinity of distinct Persons 
in the Godhead Scripturally proved, 
37-64. Doctrine not so expressly de- 
clared in Scripture as some others; 
not therefore less true — Manner of 
Scripture teaching— Means for in- 
struction provided in the Church: 
387. 

Scripture teaches Unity of God... 
Plurality in the Godhead .. . yet not 
plurality of Gods ... Distinct person- 
ality of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost: 388. Intimations of Plurality 
in the Godhead in Old Testament, 39, 
40. 


Distinct declarations of such Plu- 
rality, and of the Godhead of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in New 
Testament, 41. Godhead of. the Son 
taught in New Testament, by reason- 
able inference, 41-43 .. . by direct state- 
ment, 44-49. Godhead of the Holy 
Ghost taught in Scripture, 49-51. 

Unity of Godhead in Trinity of Per- 
sons scripturally proved, 51-54. Dis- 
tinct Persbnality of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, scripturally proved, 
54, 55... of the Son, 51-62. (Sabel- 
lian views of first chap. of St. John 
confuted, 59-62.) ... ofthe Holy Ghost, 
62, 68. The whole subject, though 
‘above our understanding, yet not con- 
trary to our reason, 64. Language of 
the fathers in relation to three Persons 
in one God, 64, 65. 6 
Unworthiness of Ministers, Art. xxv1. 
610. Heretical Baptism, question con- 
cerning, in the primitive Church... 
connected with, though quite different 
from,’ the question treated of in this 
Art. — Necessity of personal holiness 
of ministers to validity of ministra- 
tions, held by Donatists ; by Anabap- 
tists; (evil living of lower class of 
friars in Middle Ages ἃ principal 
ground for cry of reform, 618 :) not 
held by the fathers ; not by Church of 
Rome ; not by foreign nor English Re- 
formers : 610-614. 

“ Intention” of ministers necessary to 
validity of ministration, Roman Cath- 
olic doctrine of, not originally aimed 
at, but in effect met, by this Art., 614, 
615. Evil ministers, inquiry to be 
made concerning, and they .when 
found guilty to be deposed, 616. 
Scriptural proof that “in the Visible 


SUBJECTS. 


863 


Church the evil are ever mingled with 
the good” ...and that the ministra- 
tion of evil ministers is valid... yet 
that obviously ministers ought to be 
holy, and ought, if proved to be un- 
godly, to be deposed : 616-618. 


War not necessarily unlawful, see Civil 


Magistrates, 832-834. 


‘Wicked, the, do not eat the Body of 


Christ in the Lord’s Supper, Art 
ΧΧΙΧ. (expunged for a time by Queen 
Elizabeth, probably as not agreeable 
to the members of the Church holding 
Lutheran views, 735), 782.. The Body 
and Blood of Christ either not eaten 
at all, or eaten, but only to condem- 
nation, the two only alternatives, the 
former generally held, in latter times, 
by advocates of a spiritual feeding, the 
latter by believers in transubstantia- 
tion, and (it is supposed) though not 
necessarily, by most believers in con- 
substantiation — Teaching of the fa- 
thers obscure, yet some plain passages 
in them strongly in favour. of the 
view taken in this Art. — Quotations 
— Prayer in ancient Liturgies for de- 
scent of the Holy Ghost on the ele- 
ments no proof of necessary belief that 
communicants. unworthy as well as 
worthy, must necessarily partake of 
Christ’s Body and Blood if partaking 
οἵ the elements after that descent — 
Similar invocation of the Spirit made 
in Baptism known to involve neither 
change of the water (nor admixture 
of the Holy Spirit with it) nor obtain- 
ing of sanctification by an unworthy 
recipient — Sanctification of the ele- 
ments, to a new relation, not to a new 
nature — Belief of reception of the 
very Body and Blood of Christ natu- 
rally held with belief in the opus oper- 
atum, and in transubstantiation ; 732- 
735. Scriptural proof of the doctrine 
of this Art. 785-737. 


Works before justification, Art. xilt. 


(title of Art. probably adopted because 
the question discussed in it went by 
that name at the time of the Reforma- 
tion, 335), 331. Nature of heathen 
virtue a question of great difficulty, 
touched on by the fathers before and 
atter Palagian controversy — Augus 
tine’s answer to Pelagian arguments — 
Doctrine of schoolmen concerning grace 
de congruo like that of Semi-Pelagians 
... opposed by Luther (see also 289) : 
881-898. On subject of this Art. de- 
cision of Council of Trent... views 
of Lutherans ...of our own Reform- 
ers: 898, 334. Arguments alleged 
trom Scripture against the positions 
of this Art. that works before grace 
are not pleasing to God, but rather 
have the nature of sin... and refuted 


— Revelation addressed to those whom 
it concerns ; tells us little of the state 


of heathens — Art. practically refers to _ 


«persons within the sound of the Gos- 
pel: 885-387. Scriptural proof that 
works done before peer: are not pleas- 
ing to sacle 837, that they do 





INDEX OF SuBsROTS. ' 


not make men meet to receive grace 


pep pr δὴν ph a . have the na- 
ure of sin, though there happen 
to be in them a mixture oa with 
the bad motive of self-justification ; 
this known to God alone — Ls 

of the Art. justifiable : 389, 340. 


΄ 








* 
+ 
INDEX OF TEXTS 
EXPLAINED, ILLUSTRATED, OR REFERRED TO. 
----- 

GENESIS. PAGE PAGE 
| ne P39 | XVi. 82, 6... νον νον 669 xiv. 10....0..0cs0.05 768 
PACD Ue ne eee = Bait KiB Gees tele oes HOG" BVH 72 das ccaneese tee 545 
ENO ἀντ ὅλον 202, 203 | Xxii. 81..........,.. 545 
Birt eke ny ee ἜΧΗ. 10.,...%... 220. 203 Il. KINGS 

SF i ΜΝ 304 | xxvii. 17............ 467 i hae by 
Tait Slee τονε 240, Oe ἀπ} DEUTERONOMY. ᾿᾿ sig. 21... 000 0τπένοος 689 
Fa μα hae βὰν a os j Wo 22 AG sts 187. δ ὝΨΗ; 45 62222: 587, 540 
ΔΤ aera ΒΗΣ ae νὴ, δε ον τ ττντο τους, 426 SyUil: 18. cscs νυ ΟΝ 540 
RN Ae ἐν τας. ia 
viii Ms ἐφ᾽ 6 BELO a. τ BES OBS. σὰ deen sis 429 Tl. CHRONICLES 
xix. 1 YOM chron ers BA, 546 ΝΟΣ he oN ad 429 Vi 2 eee 3805 
xxvii. 38, 89 adhd. ’ 388 | XXV- Des ol oe ee ote 305 xix TEA 3 tec wo aee 804 
χύση: 24, δ. ose ἢ 39 eavi., 19)19. cee 429 : ESTHER 
XXXVii, 85.....0.004. 92 | XXX, 19,20......0++, Bre BME Ἐς ΟΝ 546 
xlix 18 208 XXXii. 29 RO Oe Φ 203 
A Seaman anes oe SEK. IQ. 6s 305s COBY 98. JOB 
Z EXODUS 5 Smee TT S| GAT is man arse 540 ages i wlaigie oleh τ δ eee ata 
iv, 36. οι τανε ον, 628 JOSHUA. xiii. 15.000 του ΘΟ ΘῈ 
xii, 6..-..seeceecee 717 n.| Ρ' 18, Vie 2.....ἀ6 τ τον » 40 | xiv. 4. eec eee 249, 251 
WE δ. aoe 473 | 0Ὁ- 14, 16............ 546 | xiv. 19-14 2... 0.02. 
aH, 10508 ΤΗΝ 467 | ΧΧΙΪ. 18, 20.......... sag (ae Yemen =? 251 
xii. 48 ERS ΝΣ 68}. JUDGES. xv. 16. 5: ὦ 
Te Re ae. 1 ct τ να ἀντ sy om xix. 23-27....... 
ἘΣ 1 OG ei ees SBR et 20..98.. oo ες 40 
PE I SE EF 841 πη XXxi. 18, ΠΣ Peer 467 ii dee Seer ia 71 
re = I. SAMUEL. πο ΣΥΝ ΔῊ 260 n 
xxxi. 14,15......... PRR Nin Do set oe ee cen a 429 | V1 ᾿ ἐκέλευον ἐν οὐ aie 
XXXiVv 94 ΚΑ Cc ΠΑΡΌΝ 51 ἘΜῈ BAS teehee 804 an Be τ τ ΚΤΩΝ 851 
MEAT RU cone eee 768 | KV QW... 0. ee «το ns 205 n. | Σὶν 5. 31 FRAN 
ΟΝ. ἐν ενλκνος 546 | XY: 8, ὃς ote nerceee te 304 
LEVITICUS. xxviii. 11, 14.... 90, 97 n. xvi. Ε Ke... eee. O55 ee 
eee ee 81 | xxviii. 14........... 645 | Ix. wa: ghee: a 
iv ἊΝ ὌΜΜΑ ΤΥ ἘΝ ral | ae gd pene tyne eae ὅμο. a ον 
WER) δὰ. νρω»κ» οὐόοόφο ἡ νι, Τοὺς πὸ as ed  ν oa eee 
Sg aR aa 818 ΤΠ. SAMUEL πα. 40. ιν dither. 208 
BUD cote ote Watts 568 | vii. 28, 24........... 429 | XXX. νος ον ἐὸν ες 209 n 
VES o.oo skeet Sib em ἃς το εν aes cs 305 | xxxiii. 12.,......... 429 
ἜΨΗ ΕΣ Silex ss bes 108} Sit. 2.8... ἀκ ek 50, 52 | XXxvii. bs 88... «(τον po 

NUMBERS. I. KINGS. + Neem δ τ Ὁ 251. 
ds) δου Stee. arama BIS) wis 25. GO... «ον cee BA VES Ge oe 6:4 co'da o's alettentard 282 
πῆ, ΤΟΣ y ον ἐν ἡ (hh: ΣΝ si 3st Seen BOD ἸΧΗ 1 sso oe 829 
πάν. ἐν νος 467, 569 &n. | viii. 39............ 86542 © Ἰχυὶ, 122s ρὸν Se fae ae 529 
ΑΓ ὑπ Ὁ δ. teak ΣΝ 559: τ νει, 18. τπ 3e0.e7u02 109 


- 866 

PAGE 
Ixxiii. 21-24......... 209 
πον ree 467 
ΠΡ  χρνς 805 
Ixxx viii. 10-12.... 209 n. 
Co ν. ρὸν νυν 681, 545 
“ot FE eee 110 
SR Ae 618 
ΝΥΝ RRR ae er 430 
AB ΟΝ ἀνα 826, 859 

PROVERBS 
ΕΝ τς τον 59 
RBs wees thoes S 260 n. 
RS OF one Ree ere ic 209 
WE ΨΥ eae 829 
A EN 209 
Mee Os. ἐκ ese ree 859 
ECCLESIASTES 
ἣν δῶ. ΕΓ 249 
ἄπ ee tN n. 
ἘΠ’ Mie sis vas th cares 209 
ISAIAH 
Ee Gino aertee es 470 
WEBS So csiuvee eb bn 529 
Wi Be xis ie sees 42 
Wh. Δ edad 51 
ἀν tases ae) ee 40, 44, 74 
ME BO wks Sea Rin eal 18 
ὑπ ς: ἐτοων visa 40, 44 
Ox. δι ον έες κυ χα 529 
7 ἧςς (Bo Sib te ik 589 
BLY ΕΝ le wterdans 92 
MER Loe GY ciel ες a 469 
“ἐπ oe caks fests. 41 
KUL 8..9....ὦ... FRiceee . 480 
il pt ae ον νυ ννΝνθ 430 
δε κυ δεῖν 86, 58 
DRS Oke. οι δα 48 
SII) ids bile x hae 480 
ἘΠΕῚ ἢ δι ον ευύνδι 205 n. 
ΜΠ OB ic ses anemic oe 82 
C6 aside cameo 82, 249 
ey nee tei eae S 858 
SC beens 3 278 
Ixvi. 21 HEE a ert 569. 
JEREMIAH 
BN SeAY ess 5 aod evel 841 
7. PON Re eRe 254 
5 1 at SS ΕΣ τὶ 42 
KV 2H {| os ck ws 487 n. 
xviii. 7-10........... 805 
NWN. Osco εν πῆ 469 
MEL. ec 3 wba ὺςς 40, 44 
Weeds 1. δ τ ee cee 429 
MEN. AB. ss Ou eewee 278 
yo Bi” SR SMR ais 480 
EZEKIEL 

ΜΝ Obi) 1s cae eee 897 
wxxiii, 12-20........ 881 





INDEX OF TEXTS. 
DANIEL. PAGE 
ἔξ, δι τιν τς τ, 78, 469, 470 
Me MG ea ete 66/4 546-548 
WH Ts ects 78, 111, 469 
“. Oe Se er ΤῸ 210 
HOSEA 
DA | Sere Δ δὴ δ. 329 
wl 4a vanitvaaee ees 39 
SN eas <5 3 eas chcjae: Pali 887 
AMOS 
Sg ΣΙ Se ac aes 429 
MICAH 
Wil: Bi Desiisiviersiase eae 529 
HAGGAI 
WU cn ες sek weet 568 
ZECHARIAH 
BG os ccwbs ca wacawe 469 
IPRA Ts bs. oabee 529 
δὲν Nai tt a ae oe 41 
23.15 FY Ce aes ae RS 40, 44 
MALACHI 
A See are 429, 436 
a ge Yen 728, 756 " 
i. 11.... 744, 745, 753, 757 
ih FREER PPP Oe OTe Cr 8 
BYE p.2agivei ve vee bbe 40 
tS eye eee ae: 3G 529 
AS Pr re .... 4842, 
APOCRY PHA. 
TOBIT. 
EG ya's ie’ i5 skip 6 abet 528 


II. MACCABEES. 


xii. 42-45........... 528 
MATTHEW. 

ἦν eS eee (ee: 804 
Poy» he 44, 74 
MARS κα 469, 687 
ΠΟΙ͂, «dsc ode 55, 110 
TA! ORR eae | 540, 548 
ME rots wi < nanan Ghioe 44 
Lol | SRS 471 
πὶ Ct oS fa he 216, 687 
_ hn * 216, 804 
ἜΝ δι κε δὰ 216 
Wa dy 25) 88... ον, δ80 
Me, Sl sy piediawyes se. 756 n. 
V. 21=20.. ccs was 216, 260 
aS ΚΕ Rs Pa 841 
We We ah oie hiddeane 842 
v. 88, &e .. 882, 888 
νὰ ΒΗ ΥΥΥΥ γος 





v. 48. 845 n., 858, 361 
5 ἡ Daas oe Saree 695 
ὦ ΕΣ 382 
ΕΝ Ἀν a's te. dik sks 396 
Vike Phaidon meat 827 
viii. 5-18......... 1.. 884 
5K, Dieta oho ae bee 809 
"πος Ὡς 529 
Aad Tae δεῖς ae , 573 
x. Ts 1, 18: 143.5; 570 
i Cais > tn hae Ca ames 897 
Ki does oie tae can 90 
K. Ὑ να Ὁ Ὁ ὁ .... OAT Nn. 
ποθ CL deck ---- 570 
Sg) Re pra . 804, 828 
Ἀν A PR AE 
MGs sas aX bw eae 
xii. 24-82........ 891, 392 
BAS. ΤῊ ΡΟ ΩΣ , 469 
SBS, sv st cane tees 50 
BES δον, Saw git 530, 581 
aoe “Ὁ... B05 
Hi. 48-50. 5 ἐν ό ἐκ δε 362 
ες A. 7) Seige SAR 898 
ἐξ 2h ἄο. 47, &e... 470, 
a 38 Roan Shae aah 469 
ὰ ἡ τα. 139 
ἄν είν, ee SIP 810 
th NOs eas 136, 468, 487, 
ts 
VE 10% 5 os oc 570, 774, 776 
815-817 
a He {ee re 
xviii. 15-18...... 471, 772, 
118 & n., 778 
xviii. 18.... 186, 382, 570, 
815 
xix. 11,12.. 848, 759, 768, 
767 
xix. 16-21... 345 & n., 836 
SE I ον ναὶ a lone 
wes 2118. 6 co dca vacates 
WU wT ic isons cd 810, 811 
xxii. Sr) SER RSs >= 489 
xxii. 10, 11, 12... 470, 616 
ἜΝ, δοῖεν irae 188, 211 
xxii. 87-89.......... 353 
WR. Di δὸς 617, 781 
Seen. Ἰδού δος 843 
VIE: Bi ids vk we ares 808 
xxiv. δ ΠΥ: 894 & n. 
Sxiv..34, 8B... ον δὲ 117 
xxiv. 45-51..... 897, 617 
IO sand ΩΣ των τε. ἃ 116 
ἀν Ὁ 22. Ἐῶ νοῦς 
έν, 14680) ceca κοι 
χχνὶ. 26-80...... 474, 476 
xxvi. 26.... 696, 699, ‘711, 
719, 720° 
REVI. Meade ale 717, 740 
xxvi. 28.... 696, 719, 721 
REV. Gs λον ei Ses 
xxvi. 63, 64....... 848 n. 
xxvii. 19 ΨΥ ΤῊ: 


PAGE 
EV IIEG! Ἰθιζοςςς, 48, 111- 
xxviii. 19.. 54, 55, 62, "472, 
Ὁ 474, 475, 486, 570, 634. 


678 
xxviii. 20.... 42, 486, 570 
MARK. 
EM ERE Saat 813, 683, 679 
READE secs wie s+ 633 
PRU cc kiiete <ulaterosa ® = α 48 
ἡ ΕΝ Seale arose πὸ 898 
ae ara Salad ate ole a oe 644 
WAG Beas oie o'eosl 6,0; 0 WE aloes 596 
SURRY 4b: Pa ee Ae 189 
MAE Loss aay othe ae 719 
AK, BE)-BOss son oks vee 811 
> RLS Be er ee 321, 679 
Mia seh aww sale wae oe 845 & n. 
Bed te OUes το tomatne 828 
BER Aiea otha soot μὰ γῆς 828 
MNT TAGs coe seo ae 58, 167 
MB 80. Bes. c ks cant. 117 
BIW Lacon 6 ce hes es 719 
pe ASE! Se a RO 740 
MES Does cae xia 717, 720 
ἜΝ Cy πεν εν ἐμέν τὰ 112 
ενὶϊ, 10... 232, 258, 818, 
821, 449, 684 
LUKE. 

3) Meer aia & vorera aay 188 
ἐν δ᾽ DON ρεὶ odie 859, 860 
| ee epee ie 861 
διδὸν ὦ cae 78, 111 
ἀῶ Ry cad cea ai bin 74, 858 
1 ΑΝ 3 Bet Ses comes 861 
ἤν. ΑΘ. Obes we sc 361, 362 
Utah weeks accuses 117 
Hi. Segue εκ ες υνκ τι 818 
Milan ΟΣ πα alk 6 888 
ἘΝ Didi pote tow ees cst 48 
WH εν ἐλναν ἐν ας ΦΉΙΣ 805 
PAN DeLOVirs sas eae es 898 
BS, ΤΥ ¢athoa 811 
x; ὶ ἜΡΩΣ et eee ee 569, 573 
WoO. vs ςς, 570, 790 n. 

Ἂ: Ἔ 10..,1.2.1δ. oe se 570 
RO ρὸν τα viel eared 805 
δ Gr anu o-3's 6 Scheie 842 n. 
LS ORNS alah 4 ale 4: ἐν ὧν 51 
tO oy Pai ea ara eres 862 
SENT AAS es Kelso ara nforulrals 836 
ἈΝ δ δ, soa ‘orale Wibiares ἐμὰ 486 
MULES. ob τ μὸν δέον 439 n. 
PAVGAAO ivi o's ΡΟ ΩΣ 847 n., 837 
BUG s- OB ss» vaccine dee 834 
Oe a I ee μὴ 882 
ἈΕῚ A: ley ἀνὰ 530, 888 
SOUT LO aa Caos, a ΤΥ κα 805 
TVG ZB. cvs eae 836 
RWS ed sa cae ee 86, 92 
xvii. 10..... 826, 352 & n. 

SViiG ZU, Ske ces τὲ 470 ἃ ἡ 

XViii. 14 ee Pee 805 
MIS: LOM. ion ais ca eee 257 








INDEX OF TEXTS. 
PAGE 
po Un Ut pee ee eel 717 n. 
χη PCs errs 719 
xxii, 19... 570, 719, 722 
χε τες ἢ, 720, 721 n. 
MPN, Oar ΡΥ ΑΝ ΚΕΝ 894 
Exe. 4230s 42, 580 
Wx. A Ase, oe 86, 89, 90, 
534, 541 
MMT AG. ΑΝ 90 
Ἔχ" 15. Bees eee 112 
xxiv. 86-40:......... 111 
RIV Gea fe ree 158 & n. 
JOHN 
1, 114, en ot 44, 59, 61 
στον 637 
ἘΌΝ 71, 74 
Το ΑΨ δὰ 629 
Foe is ee eis 82, 358 
LEE ΚΑ ΣΦ ΝΣ DUAL Pan 862 & n 
ἘΝ 0.0 lle Rept 249 
JL areas 837, 469 
τὴν 8. δ᾽..." 276, 644, 646 
BB. δὴ 6.) eee 249 
Bi iets PES 474, 637, 679 
TEM IS pnaleg pene 42, 75, 89 
τι eed 0 Sag 1 bye 812, 449 
We, Sires mites? ie eee 45 
EEE eh τὸς eee pia τς 449 
Be eis woes ees 570 
Word 05: GcCen ss lune se 56, 57 
MM ciate cat eis, ovine Tin 
ρος en tec 43, 72, 73 
Wiener: 187, 154, 21. 
idee ste its tes aoe 728-727 
Vigo, 44°45. ee 310 
MitBbe Od cata ood 55, 394, 
489 n., 440, 441 
ἐκ ὐτν ἐν γα Μασ τυ ΑΞ ἐν 812 
A ρον ΣΝ ὑμῖν, 274 
AE DG a heron 474, 689, ed 
SIGS OOTS fb. cls tee 
Mitta ohne as aoa i 
Ws, 0. ΩΣ oie 698 
ΑἸ 6 Sekar Nar et 5 440, 617 
GO FON hee ae ll ee arte 338 ". 
ph Melee! Petals dL Rr Ne Τῆς 73 
Villu ἐγ ϑνὰ ὅν, όσα. ΟΣ ess δ6 
viii. 34-86....... 275, we 
WilbiOe suis alas oats em 
WHA cen ccre ee tae tse oe 
τὰς Bie coe cea tetas 42, 45 
PML siete tet comes 894, 440 
"ἢ ἐν ay ge BEM lage 43, 52 
MA RONG sere eee eS 43, 109 
MSIL seve eee DL Srerere nts oie tase 52 
ily Os rire ae 451 
SIV OU ssc ae 43, 449 
SS RE ESM Shs ble 52 
oh MAS 2 a ai ee 167 
Mi pceoini« ws oo λν ΟἽ. 73 
MAPS to cate pete 858 
xv. 1-10.... 276, 319, 399, 
450 
xv. Z5.... 56, 62, 125, 126 





867 | 
ΔΝ νὸς δῦ, 68, 120, τὸ 
RVI ower eae eee 
xvi. 13.... 55, 62, 68, 167, 
472 
RWIS uc sede ed Σ: hs 71 
Ἀν a 55, 58 
NVI Ds τευ vet 894, 440 
Me Vb DE a Sia ee: 441 
ἘΨΗ 7) eed othe 472 
ΠΝ Zl, BQ. seas eV. 52 
RVI 2h θυ ohh 690 
Mik. 26-27 ih accede es 861 
MIR (BT. ον Viren 42 
» Ee EP Sa ere ae 112 
XxX: 21=282 2.2.25 570 & n., 
5738, 774 
EK DB teil ee 126 
Xx. 22, 28... Te, 789-791, 
815 
SX: 23 ΠΥ 48, 882, 475, 
776 n. 
xx. 25-28. ..00.... 45,111 
xR BL eras 188, 449 
χα, 16-17 5 2 02 ὁ 570, $17 
ACTS 
| a Toe νος 138, 469 
Ae AA yh oe Ot ae 112 
| Cal PRINTER eee yo 117 
Ὧι 1“. τ τὴ ea ee 112 
ΟΣ Ae” 861 
To Wirt ow terres b eras 570 
ἐὸν ως ch Teo sae 568 
|| ay) Re σι 817 
fie ραν et es 207 
Mee det ot cae ee 84, 95 
ii. 87, 88.... 258, 318, 450, 
474, 633, 634, 665 
il Be sis 5 ses 680 
ie δ. τ ΝΣ 472, 474 
1; 44 4B seeded 837 
TT, δι... γνῶ, eee 781 
qe A ς ἐφ ως 439, 450, 468, 
471, 634 
12) θεν ee DS 617 
ΡΝ PE? ices τε ΝΣ 858 
TN, Poe Cn ee a 449 
ἣν. Bo Ge τη 837 
ΨΥ μεν ee Rts 888 
ΟῚ Στ γέλγατιΣ 468, 471 
LO ΠΥ ἘΝ ais Te 808 
WIE. Cee al an eons 628 
Wily ΣΤΥ oe 467 n. 
vii. 59.... 42, 90, 541, 542 
WUT Ce ene dere 468, 471 
viii. 12, &e.. ον 450, 571 
Sih Wee Rose oe ae sil 
AT! ie a Aap as Berita 882 & ἢ. 
ἀπ, te Nie eee alo ey ce A 450 
LRA OL Oye es cee 6 
Dare, 822, 888, 835, 623 
634, 834 
> tr ae veer 42, 521, 547 
SOMMET fc tila Bee he 62 
> Ati. lee sete ἀρ tiple 110 


868 
᾿ς PAGE 
A Bg err 812, 449 
x. 47, 48..... ... 460, 
εις 469, 471 
RACERS RESET pa ὦ 
AG ee ean 576 
AB, oss angs. ORS 808 
ae ει, (ἐν Δ 
ΝΥΝ ΤΣ αν ἢ 440 
OR Eee Poe ae 809 
Was 14, 1δ.... ξεν χει 547 
BR, Oc τ κε δῆς 571 
ee Rt S's ςοςς 574, 811 
“xv 3, 22 αὐτή oes »ὰ OR 471 
VGC iis 0.0 05. Maree 42 
a eee 809, 880 
ΠΣ es o's. ΡΤ 1" 48 
νι δ} δύνα v0 ἐλ OS 408 
ἘΝ ee ae χα ΝΣ 278 
KV 2D, 88......... we 680 
ng 3 re 812, 449 
VIEL. occas φὰ 188, 212 
yt) oe: ee 837, 452 n. 
oC) a) Re eae 
5 se ee 450, 474 
Εν νά υαν 40 
ὯΝ ἀν ως, 468, 471, 571, 
5738 
SEAN latest alata etale Oras 475 
xx. 28.... 48 & n., 58, 75, 
76, 434 fe, 471, 486, 671, 
817 
aE WORD SAY di cele einlnc'a 838 
Ὁ 2G. oes wixie's-e δ 78 
xxii. 16.... 318, 321, 450, 
688, 
το ἥν ἀν τὶ 859 
SEU i ἐκ ἐάν one 211 
MEU: δ. “κὰν soca’ 860 
ΘΝ νον δὲ 256 
9 OEY Oe 475, 576 
oo ΚΡ | eee eae « 88 
πω ΘΗ ἢ 781 
REVI. 2D.......cas gs δὲ 
ROMANS 
ΠΕ ΤΥ λον via οὐ s BOL 
MEDD is nia acs a. 4 aca ean 808 
ΒΥ CORRES SARE 482 & ἡ. 
RE Ra i ae aS ge Ὲ 888 
BOL surah Agia the ds oath 887 
| gp) Re | aR er 452 n. 
ΠΝ τς ναι sees 287 
ii, 14, 26, 27ψοι...... 286 
ii. 14, 15 ως 6 < ake 256 
iii Ἢ εἰ δ ath eis 188, 154, 488 
at Digmss cn sca shake 808 
EMIS a: i'n sco iain 804 
δι το κανεν» εὐ ΩΝ 859 
RS: Dae 250, 451 
TOL WB dices ns on 852 
NG ARO. i swears 88 
ES ESD i σθρηρ μὴ Αροηρ ον, 250 
jii. 20.. Mare ey bb) 
δι SG aa bse hate 815, 326 


a 





INDEX OF TEXTS. 
PAGE PAGE 
Shy Ὁ GO. 6S nate a tex BUS | ν, δ... vis Saws owe > tae 
SM is turn goles cee 827 | xvi. 14, Bice «(ν,. co SOS 
WM Sia sons sleek 807 | xvi. 1 16, . Fagen ae . 471 
iv. 1, oe Palani θελα, sap 4 xvi. 17 δι se obi 775, 781 
ες De sc on ες ake 201 n. ; 
ἜΑ Ὡς ΚῈ, ἀν acai a 306| 1. CORINTHIANS. 
O93 Tie) ip ecasileps an BSD ao tia ead nie Gita wate ae 
BO eas css en ἮΡ BOG) | Sas Oremes 2's) diveinnee 895 
ORE Ao -c5 ah eho ΤΡ CALS Ty & AR Se er 811 
ἐν, 16s, vinkes se avert BAD Lah vv.c an ρος ἈΠ ΞῈ Σ ας 
ἦν, PROOF Se ρῶν αν 
ἂν δ a ae eel B17 |b 10, Bes Ως 52, 167 
ἘΠ τ αν SME SE wcrotare 7 ahold: Fe Faved . 276 
ae LA) an Sele »" a ONG TE LOE. oo a0 iactaterare Bee 252 
ἀξ, ὡς “00, 2585 DEG [Ἧ 8... 0s vei tame 781 
258 n., 859 | οὐ Gi Ts Ven nace 617 
A Oe Rekha: τ aly a bai 262 | iii. 12-15........ 507, &c., 
ΝΟ τ x acocwsa bake 287, 815 530, 
a ER a RE ee, 9 Wei 16.0328 ΣΟ 50, 62 
Σ κα sce so hares 22, 328 | iii. 16, 17 280, 384, 638 
Wis δι itso vans eo BOO Viv, 1816.0: ¢cdé5.ceen 811 
ie oe Se ον ινς ATE ORB BG 1... scccecnenene 382 
640 & n . να 6s ne cantons ΤΊ 
Δ a BD. oie SOO | We Gers ἐξες δὸς 774, 775 π 
fig με Sea καὶ ΣΥΝ εὐ i dia dle nee σῶν 775 
WS hadsats icy cis sak Wy Ap Ae re ees re 768 
ES Ae ee aR χν 216 \wig @-11.... 252... 0 83 
SR crete, 250 n, | Vi. W1.......000. 818, 683 
Vu. Τρ κι" 250 & n., 252, | vi. 16........... 884, 635 
255, 888 PNG: cites tes 884, 688 
WAS by See cxseicid o.n,4.4 sin δι." 50, 62, 384, 0638 
vil; 250, 279, 348 n. | VII.... 348, 349, "759, 768, 
ἘΣ <i> ὁ, 258 n., 827 764 
Wastes BGC ess ce TR WES oc ce aceon eae 767 
WEE secs a vc chee ΤὝ ἃς OOO LEWIN Det. 3b tee. $21, 679 
ἘΠ ἊΣ aM et pe 136, 952 | VO 17. 5.05550 468, 471 
VHIs Dodds <)> pick οὐδ O6F EWS 20s vcs ao ccwetiinn , 342 
WIT sc ais eee γι SOC AWite ΡΥ ΣΈΟ. 850 n. 
ἘΣ οι, Sar 252, 888 | vii. 85........ 850 n., 767 
WE ada) ess 54'hate ἘΣ δες te ces 87, 41, δῶ 
WAU Ls oo sda vera ata SUG: LE. os she oe bare 847, 765 
Ἐν cy goet Wat Gar, GS1-1 9S. Sie. ce eee 259, 280, 360 
WA AD cen cs os ea ees Rte pn Se Sete 727-729, 741 
viii. 19-23. ........ Ἀν. 9} 5. 1610, 153. ις 898, 680 
τ ἠφῦς |) sos 42> wake ἘΝ oct os eae .. 720 
SIs bua ca oot ΟΝ, RLS AE LS > TRI ar ΤΑ ee . 280 
viii. 29, 80........ 489 & n. | Xx. Woven vais 474, 570, 728 
viii. 88...... 286, 807 ἃ n. | x. 2L.......... 27, 756 ». 
SAL SE ORs sc 0k Stans σὲ Υχ Ἐν. 28. πεν re 134 
Rinks coaches ye eens 486 | xi. 4, &e., 17, &e . 484 
πο Beis τ" Oe κ΄ ὦ BR Re Nice be πος, 255 
οτος νον 45 | xi. 19-80.... 729, 780, 94 
Ss oe 5 3 ances eae PSB RR Ae Aan i 
ix. 81, 82.... 199, 282, 452 | xi. 24, 25........ 570, ὯΝ 
a | Gree B79 1 eh DO. ee visas 722, 756 
See a sa toy. δναν ἃ 98 ἘΚ Se yee Se 780, 7386 
τ ες BON gD chery ome PT oo Ata de 635 
SEE Oh via To ΚΎΣΤΙΝ ὙΡ 488 1 ih. WDOT ees 635 
τος aie N/a he co oe BOS XH DOs cat ae 672 
Ἐν τ νος 828, 8δ8; 756 | xiii. 2..........- 809, 322 
rt ce: Or 781, BOG ἃ ὦ 1 Kill, Bei Vinnie s es ee 845 n. 
ONT RE ate nis aa hials- a's 86 | wes 38.5 oS τὰν 809 
Up, Sanh ee ep aura ἦν 884 | xiv. 14, &e.. . 580, 581 
PEC MEIC, cates chews 117 | xiv. 26, 40....... 484, 780 
oo ty Bye nine GOO PAs BOcucckehas ae ὅν. 





INDEX OF TEXTS. 869 








" PAGE PAGE 
RIV; Gee. cates eas 484 | iii. 26, 27. iii "109 
ΧΥ͂.... 112, 118 & n., 257 "636, a eee iit Ἰδῆς Loahelahed aa) rs 
ΕΠ. 'U cic cia0.0)s we Rees a8 1]. Te Rae iy 8 
τευ gr 4 Bi τὴς ii 27... . 258 n., 884, 460, | iii. Ἢ ὑφ ὐρι οι ον τὺ .. 48,118 
xv.22......4 955, 256, 957 | 1V..s..... eee ence sleek ee: 308 
xv. 24, 28.......05. 77 n.| iv. 6. "6. 1% | ive BBs. osc coc ce cook is 
ee δα ψΉ Ηρ τὰ, eee aera 96 
xv BO. v eee 0328 v. 6... 201 309, 310, 330 COLOSSIANS 
high Lon sulgemconion crt Pl, emda ee τι εν "5, hater οὐ <1 
xy. SO τς. 398 |v. 20........... Same hare gat ans ot 
a A ee 146. 898 | τί 111 τὴς 25 i pana Wich 43, oS 
ike [6 5 RRO Sk BBB 1 18. ὐνννννννύνε 
ἘΝῚ 10a eae 781 | vi. 10....... 308, 686 + 99°92. aig 
¥01. 19.0 as 468 | vi. 16... 0... ah 16, 310 : ὖς eae ort ee 
ἈΠΟ STG, Be eee i, 588 
II. CORINTHIANS. as ουνρλοσορο Hei: "239 
ἐξ δος asusensettees 848 if Ἢ ον 482, 483) fig. lees ὅδ 
ΡΣ BOB LE BITS ΠΕ 
i 10... 48, 882, O74, 777 |» oR ae Ped & ee ΝΗ 640 &n 
εἶ δ:- ORT <4 tango! 1 ἢ" LBs TS eas vas 251, 275 
0 apne beseee a1 OP. ck cs ccc OR) Ge ee see 
7 ΩΝ ἘΣ ἘΠῚ | tds Benes see vas NOey Lage sagen 34388 bo 
AR BY oo | fe Binee esse nee σας BN ye fe a On 
OE daca eR 109 He Us sats case 108, 640 n 
a τὴν Ἢ» | RBBB cece (aT og Rar I sa ane 
ἘΝ OS 109 | te 8... eens cree renee 315 | iv i ers eer on 
ie aed δὰ 643, 648 | 10 Ls ee B18 BOR LT ΤῊΝ ΔῊΝ ΟΣ bat he 
Ἐπ A Us 05.460 6 alee οὺ ὁ ὁ ὃ 
Ve TB veneer 80,9] {20.000 0000 Bra] Se 
Bt cre 8 Ἧι 51, te 486, 88. ag 386 
δ ἢν ΠΣ RS EV chs a warele δὰ AGU Gat ne nn ae 
v.69. we OH LEB Gcsse cscs CR 533 
δ hae Dees aah 259 iii 1 ApS xis B,, 636 iv. 15-17 Tory eee 115 
ect amp eat iis “Er aeager B12 Ble τ᾽ ΤΠ Ὑπὸ 781 
woe ont 358 IV ees ars: 434, 435 γ΄ 12, 18.......-. er δὸς 
mith Soa ea IV. 4... sees eee eae 471 
Ay tei saa $64 ᾿ς BS sO. tee aered 472 | 1. THESSALONIANS 
hice tenes Bs ἢ 565. ἴδ. δ. τον νον οος 87, 41, 46 BD, Loni. Sesniaie wiela's here 117 
OY AO tRNA 882 iv: 8, 11, 12.......... (od be Sonu ge i 
MH ie 8 798 ἡ. Ἢ : abe Nea 109, (SRLS 6, 14 6S RRS 717 
ASG is ETRE SO 898, Β88 Προ sot sso » 34 
rr νων SOI ake an és6, 680 | 1. TIMOTHY. 
ἀρνιῶν B60 | Ws 22... ὁττρντος 250, 258 ΠΡ ....ψ...... 571, 674 
xiii 1, Ὁ. “40... Ὁ 1 177 TV. Ze. eet e eens περ eet | Lehi ΣΟΎ ois (o's. oie ererelage 804 
en σης νον κοντς. OER ιν ἢ τ 607 1 48... B74 
7 eae, 767 11. ὅθι... τ sce 
inva wh nek τι 26. oY 313, 450, , 664 ii 1, ATS? 574, 804 
x 1. 1-8... 6... eee ee OSD ak eh Sead 86, 449, 545 
i 1 eds toons 475, 576, δ: A een 888 | ii. 118... {10 571, 574 
ν. ee 168 | vi. 16....... Pee Se ke ee ee ᾿ 59 
Mew an Pumaperans. |G T ES γρ ἀπ, 
na Ponape es Ἤν ἯΙ. The Aas 766 & n. 
LQ. eee eeee scene SABLE Lessee ees 475, 571, , 518 | i 15... . 471, 472, 487 
τὰ ee vane : 1,6. sce e eee e econ ee iii. 16.......++-0 000, 48 
ἐν. 9, 1. ΠΝ 811 i. 8. TRIN δε ἴδ, δι... eae B74 
16: Gin Ades ROR RG eh, 136 ᾿ ΤΑ hr ἐὰν 
1. 6. ἀο,, 14, ἀρ... 201 α. 1. 19.. ὐ νον το τον νι ΤΑ αν ak ᾿ 
ΗΠ. 19.0 ον. τ: 199 i 88 δ τος 90, 641, 642 |v. 17........ B71, B74, 775 
Hi. BL. 200 hy 452. Ὁ BY eves 310 | vy. 19-21..... 574, 618, 77 
ii. 22. » 850 | ih 5-8... eee 46, 47 | y.22........ 571, 574, 618 
δ. 28, eu... sees. 808 |i 12-0... 806, 485 |G 8:8... Δ ἢ 472 
ἼΣΑ Δ ΣΑΣ δου ii δ: 2.000000. 277, 278 | vie 9, 10... Δ 000.000 806 














“Ὁ wel ae 
870 INDEX OF TEXTS. 
)" PAGE PAGE PAGE 
| ΤΑΣ ΤΕ ΠΡΟ 674 | ix. 14........ Py ice 858 | ili. 19.... 94, 96,100 ἃ n., 
. al ee 847, 889 | ix. 15-20.......... 721 η.} &e. : 
ΣΤ a Rela 680, 755 | iii. 21... 48, 814, 450, 474, 
Il. TIMOTHY. x. 2 gh piensa! 78, 755 | 680, 682 & n., 684 
αι" B71. 673, 674, B76, ᾿ς τ sees ce ee GES, 100-1 BRO ase hous cece 
791 oer ee eae Ὁ gr irre ee 887, 897 | v. ‘sii . 475, 571, 574, 576, 
ae 488, 674 | X- 28, 29..........05 ὲ 
{16 18: τὰ » 628, 629 | X. 82..........0..05% Ms Wrens Gehan Cans ea 309 
5 eis 184, 486, 574 | XI..... 211, 809, 811, 880} v. 18-............. 433 n. 
Mies cenit oo eosa ee BS4 [Rade γον a taste ec 46 n. : 
ye ee! Ne 686 | Xi. 5... 2... eee ee 203 Il. PETER. 
“ΔΑ he eee eR ES RAE BOG pAED add tia cas oe eee ee 49 
Ny ERS ae 828, 896 | Xi. 8.....0......008, Lhe He ae τ κα δὸς 809 
ih ORCL TERR Re ee 10 IS. νον io ee 138 
iii. 15-17.... 187, 154, 212 xi. 40 Acs Se OF Wihousec cent ans Ga Κ᾿» 472 
ον σῷ Cerne δ ον S08 1 iE, 21 98S ee see. 899 
a ae ES 8 Sota xii. 15, 16...... 808; 622 n. | fil. 9... ἐὐυσνονν 811 
eae ta 890, δὲ | we ATs. 6655.2 πος Bor HIME. ΧΟ ΚΑ ven ΜῊ 117 
‘ a ES. oo. s:: 90, 541, 642 | iii. 9............005. 888 
TITUS. xid. 2 Sas a ty aa as ΠΡΟ. cs cae 206 
Me RS, dsc yee te BY 118) 27. «cove ceoeee 398 
Rutten? $10, $00, BUSI Ta ν΄ rte 776 
ιν ἄρον Benen sy? WG | ἘΠΕ See ess rare s esate I. JOHN. 
epee ae tre 486 xii is ee ΤΣ iy i. 8..... 260, 826, 851, 869 
Seay ties AS OSE) Sr 1... B96, THK n., BOOB Ἰὼ ...:- oe 
iii 1. pd Soak Se he 781 | Xili- 17.......... 776, 781) ἢ, 1.2.......Ψ 88, 888. 885 
i, B22 2222 376, 689 | aliE IB. ΑΗ HB, 252.....ἁὑο ον δ 
ἘΠΕ γεν 814, 816, 688 i. Se 0.2. 472 
iii, 10....... 472, 674,777]; 4 JAMES. Hi. δι. ον νννννννννον «388 
a att BEE αι ot EDs δου νον vo va awe n. 
PHILEMON. BERG is Sind κἀν 895 | jij, a EER 384 
ΒΥ ΧΡ ε, here krs νον 812 ΡΣ ΘΕ Sf Ae. πο ν᾿ 896 
oovererve i. aR ahaa & near "et 278 | i; 7-10 2A ham 116, 642 
σειν 5 acy wis cael | % «eae etna NES 828 | ss: - 300, 896 & n., 641 
ii. 14, &e.... 291, 809, 810, ΠΕ ὅν" ἀν" δὲ 
HEBREWS 3 my ss gash i, aa 
ἀλλ δι: ΡΟΣ). 58 ‘ee ἐπα: Ban ies vise. ΩΝ 
a Geen A DES ΤΠ BB... aa 822n.|y.1...... ||| 810.642 
PRAIA 14569, 02 156.91-98......... .0 22 “TL 2 aaa 4 
at. ‘| A es 811, 880, 396 
G26 ios sesacseulende BONIS δι tas κε ice wrench 572 | vy. .16.17......... 885. 391 
OS ER ION 71 | iii. 2... 259, 826, 851, 859|y 90. ΡΝ τ "49 
26810... 50:5 ὙΠῸ ΠΡ Deus chutes ot mes las cic ce eee 885 
i 6, Pee " ἥν. το ΕἸ ΝΣ ΤῊ ας οὐδε νυν ἀν bi - 
BiB. RG Wot 11, ΒΟΥ οροιοΕι0ιμςΗρο ΤῊΣ 842, 843 
ΜΝ} 11: χον το, ἘΕΕΝ ἃς 845. ὦ...75.1δ.0} ox okay 888,00 ante 50ἘΝ 472 
TR leans ale ACK Ri ae 47}; G7 | Gare nes she oa ἐδ ΤΣ 
ie Cee joo | ν. 4-16......... 595, 697 | 20, UL... .--.seeeeees 
Ma bisie νιν civ viene on Me ἀν RG cris εν εν 000 6 04, 
ec ae 358 Il. JOHN 
a Sy 126 aa ΨΚ 546 I. PETER. Dev eeeeeeeeeesns ΠΕ "Ἢ 
22S Salis ἘΣ 764, 755 |i. 2............. 483, 486 19... Ὁ τ see eee 717 
Se RE nt APRA eae oF ees 687, 640 n. JUDE. 
vi. 4~6..... 888, 889 & nn. |i. 4,5......ce0ce ccc, 396 
vi. sine Marita ak 850} 1 Ree Taam 583  8..... «ον ον 185, 168, 472 
Min Barks tecerede cou OE) eee 5B, 125  4--.. sere eeeceeees 87, 49 
hE Ah | A pes πον cers csevnnss 808 | I]... . pee eereeeeeeee 569 
Tp ede ae 78 |i. 15, 16......... 868, 861 | 19.......... ee ee eee 276 
ἯΙ, ϑ, hee veaaeae OT Seen $2, 359 | 20, 21, 24............ 898 
vii. 21, 24; 28....... OMI Lic «hig dis.§ ¥'y 000 259 
vii. 26-98............ SLE SR 688, 756 REVELATION 
Wi, 10, Wc vesstecs 681 | ii. 9, 10..... 488 & n., 669 | 1.4, 11..........000: 468 
ks b> TERA tees <e 82] ii. 18, 17......... 10), BOA dAc®, . τον με sane 569 
HAR ey BRL OAS TMT Pasa. occas ves vat ΠΟ ΝΕ, ἐρῆνρουβ να ipa = 146 
RRO ET a σαν BEB 14. 20. 0-05 ΤΥ.) 575 


re ee ey 
ΟΣ 
Ce 


ee ΥΣ 


ΟΣ) 


, 89, 90, 91, 525 





. 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


PAGE 
vi. 11, vii. 14, 15., 541, 542 
8 


ἘΣ ον a aes 86, 848 
MIG es ε αν αν γε 78 
Dc AL. Pree epee τὰ 82 


eee meee eseesee 














a pee 


= 


: 





THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DA | 
STAMPED BELOW > 


14 DAY USE 
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 


LOAN DEPT. 


This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
on the date to which renewed. 
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 


C<ECFIVEN 


7 oP Mi 


LOAN DEPT. 


DUE NRLF DEC 20 1986 


LD 21A-60m-7,'66 Veoh enn F Callfocaia 
(G4427810)476B : Berkeley 





err: oo 53: Ps 





UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 








ἄσσον 


ers 


Sears 
σέ . 
Saee 


ze ΣΕ 


Np Ati 
LAY? ty) 
ike 
He 
ἣ 


Ν ἢ 


wenger 
ia, 


aguas 


ie Seyeeat 
δ 


᾿ 
Ὑ 


ἡ 


aati 


ἦν 
Atay aay 


αἱ Nd 





x ᾿ aa) 
f ayn D 
ais a 


i 
ΤΑΝ 


